User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hayle
Well done on the vandalism : ...Oh how we laughed (not) :) Mammal4 08:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- You can't really do proper reverts until you have admin status - I just pick through it by hand and delete the vandalism that way (I had a few random ones on St Erth this afternoon). Once you have admin I believe there is a button at the side (simmilar to the compare versions button on the history pages) that you just highlight and it adds the relevant comentary for you Mammal4 22:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Duh - didn't think of that! (much slapping of f'od)...and they say I'm supposed to be clever! ;) Mammal4 09:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Penzance transport
What exactly did you have in mind here in terms of expanded content, and how much detail do you think appropriate? I will have a crack at this over the weekend - have fun at Flora day ;) Mammal4 12:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Penwith organisation
I've actually set up a page to organise how best to tackle improving the Penwith pages here, as a wikiproject - feel free to add your name to the list. there isn't much there yet as we haven't had much time to organise lists of things to do yet, but the idea is to write down a list of things that we think need doing and then divide them up so as to avoid editor conflicts, as well as bash out ideas for direction. I don't intend it to be a forum for constitutional matters! Mammal4 08:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Mark - Just added some information about the history of the Hayle Harbour development etc to the Hayle site - Simon Reedgunner
UK / England -Cornwall continuing thing
Hello Mark, thanks for the feed back left on my talk page - I will have a look at your suggestions in detail when I am not sneeking a peek at wikipedia at work!!! RE the NPOV business - Dont worry I will 'hold myself back' from being biased in Cornwall articles - I actually edited the Penzance article and added 'England' which has resulted in a bit of venom from a few friends of mine - Never mind eh!!! I think most of the Cornwall articles need more content and less bias so I hope to at least have a go. All the best Simon user:Reedgunner
- Yeah I know, I should just leave it alone, but its like picking at a scab! :) I've been talking about getting some policy written for a while but haven't got around to it. Really it should be a pan-Cornwall policy rather than a Penwith policy, otherwise the Unionist faction always throw article consistenct back in your face (Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography was founded by England POVers who wrote much of the original stubs. They have integrated the home nations rather than UK thing into all the article templates at the ground floor, so its quite hard to go against the flow). I quite like the idea being discussed at Talk:Cornwall about a separate page for the nation of Cornwall from the England administative unit of Cornwall, which might provide some balance, but I think it would be an uphill struggle, and I don't know if I have the energy!
- I've fixed the project template box as you suggested (that is what you meant?) Mammal4 21:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Wreckless Eric; Mick Ronson et al
- Yes, I am the same person I have always been ! Keep up the good work, Mark.
- Derek R Bullamore 20:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Falmouth
Hi Mark, welcome on board!
I like the clarity that you introduced to the Falmouth article, these things sometimes need a new brain to untangle them. Just watch out for "the" definite article at the start of headings - The arrival of the railways in Wiki style would be more usual as Arrival of the railways.
I look forward to reading more of your work around Wikipedia.
Geof Sheppard 08:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Severin
Hey, it's cool. You've been adding some great information. I just really like keeping things to format and being consistent. The WP standard is "when in doubt, using '&' instead of 'and'". For example, Belle & Sebastian use "and" half the time and an ampersand the other half, but WP compromised on the ampersand. The Banshees usually use "and", I know, but not always: Tinderbox, Through the Looking Glass, Superstition, Twice Upon a Time, The Rapture, and some of the singles all use the ampersand. Also, the WP page for the band uses the ampersand, which was the deciding factor for me. Happy editing! Folkor 20:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
|
Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us. | ||||
| Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet!
Todo:
| |||||
Lovely piece you wrote on the Beatles talk page, you clearly know a lot about the band and can write well, so please consider joining our project - even if you all want to do is make suggestions and comments as you just have done. --kingboyk 21:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Replied at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles#re.3B_your_kind_invitation_to_join_The_Beatles_Project. --kingboyk 14:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hiya mate. Lar seems to be a bit busy at the moment (and I guess he'll be running for adminship soon) so I'm grabbing the next person (man? woman? other?) I can think of and that's you :) I think it's about time we sent out our first newsletter, to tell the less active members where we're at and what's happening. The most important part of this is to try and drum up some more participation as I think the Project is floundering now the initial "new Project euphoria" is over. See you over at Talk? --kingboyk 04:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Happy Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)
hi
why did u put on your page links to articles such as "son", daughter", family ? these are common words :)
- i didn't quite understand your message. what is keeping you up all night exactly ? what's the problem?
The Banshees
I don't claim ownership of the gothic rock article. It must be stated that, well, Siouxsie and the Banshee are well-referenced as gothic rock, from books about the gothic rock scene to Allmusic.com's listing on the band. I'm not saying they were exclusively goth either; obviously they released songs like "Kiss Them for Me". No band is forced to write material in one genre. And additonally, not every band is comfortable with being confined to a genre; the Sisters of Mercy hate being labeled goth and The Cure find it inappropriate. In fact, I'm surprised that the Banshees were removed from the paragraph rather than the Cure if anything, who are routintely criticized in the goth community for being a "pop band".
You obviously don't have to consider them a gothic rock band (they also spanned genres like first-wave punk, post-punk, New Wave, and alternative), but they are considered a gothic rock band by a lot of other people and sources, and a pivotal one at that. WesleyDodds 21:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Additionally, if you can expand the Banshees page substantially (since it is surprisingly sparse) that would be much appreciated. WesleyDodds 21:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Severin:talk
Copied from discussion page;
deleted 31.05.06.
Greetings from WikiProject The Beatles!
 Issue 1 - May 2006 | ||
|
Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Beatles WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this newsletter will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new things to do within the project that they may wish to participate in. Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome. We would like to emphasise that this is a collaborative Project and all editors are equal - so next month the newsletter editor might be you! kingboyk, LessHeard vanU and Lar | |
The Project has got off to a great start but we really need your help to keep it going. Here's a few things you can do:
Complete Todo List:
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log. | ||
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? - It's all here
PS, a big personal thanks for your efforts in getting this newsletter ready to go, your contributions helped loads. Cheers for that, mate! ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Edit summary
"If Helter Skelter is only about a fairground ride, then Norwegian Wood is about IKEA!". Lol! Interesting theory, perhaps you should write an article about it? :P --kingboyk 12:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- What is it about then? It's just a bit of a twee love song. McCartney was into twee songs at the time - Honey Pie (about some bird who goes to America and her feller misses her), Martha My Dear (about his dog) - it wouldn't surprise me if this was just as shallow. What's important, and the reason this song is remebered so fondly, is that the actual music is very similar to the punk music of the next decade. To be honest, I think if you read too much into the lyric, you'll probably end up killing Roman Polanski's wife. What do you think the song is about? I', intregued now!--Crestville 15:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's a good anylasis, yeah. Never thought of it like that. Wasn't trying to start an agument, BTW. Only start arguments with the cunts on Wikipedia, I like that. As for a lively debate, I can't help but agree with you, so we can't really have one - though I would point out the song has also been covered by Oasis and U2, who claimed "Charles Manson stole this song from The Beatles, now we're stealing it back!". What a wanker. I noticed your in the Wikibeatles project. I'd love to join a group so close to my own heart, but unfortunately I find the articles are more or less complete. There's nothing I can really add. As a wise man once said "There's nothing you can know that isn't known". Or was it "HELTER SKELTER! (dooby dooby dooby dooby)"--Crestville 20:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, she is a card. I just don't know what I can add about the Beatles. I thought I knew a lot but it all seems to be down there in some form, or it won't fit. Out of intrest, would you be able to give the Noel Gallagher page an edit from a neutral point of view? I can't get it GA status as it is apparently too POV. Reckon you could help?
- Well I made sure I only used the stuff that involved - or at least directly effected - Noel. I know about the surnames too. That's a bit of a paradox, but I think it's ok now. I think the best balence is to have the enthusiam of a fan and the neutral point of view of an outsider, but I wouldn't really want it to be dry. More moist. Cheers anyway mate.--Crestville 22:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've had a very quick scan and it looks pretty good to me. It's possible to be both enthusiastic and neutral in outlook, and it's also possible to get fan-written pieces to FA status (as my recent won't-talk-about-it-any-more success demonstrates). It's perhaps a little concerning that the article relies on such a small number of sources, and I think also that each re-used source doesn't need a new footnote. Just give the ref a name and reuse it (<ref name="VH1"/> for 2nd and subsequent uses). I'd fix it myself but I'm a bit tired now (maybe I'll do it some time if nobody else does). Given the length of the article, I think that WP:GOOD is not the best venue for it to get review. I'd suggest listing the article for peer review, with the ultimate aim of FA status. Hope that helps. --kingboyk 22:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Cheers van man, I rather think he was. Yeah, he's a very nice fellow. Cheers.--Crestville 20:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
from TrevorD
You couldn't link me because my User Id is actually: [[User:Tdw|TrevorD]] as shown in the edit box! -- TrevorD 15:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello
Hi, how can I help? Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
OK I'll give it a bash! Although I may have to call on you for help with certain things from time to time, if that's alright with you? Vera, Chuck & Dave 13:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me and for your kind offer of help, which I need! At the moment, I'm just finding out how things are done, I've just discovered how you make the thingys go blue! I've read the letter - looks fine. I hope that I'll be better able to help when I become more familiar with how things are done. Take care and close all your doors at night! Vera, Chuck & Dave 08:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. I tried to capitalise "The Hurricanes" in The Beatles article, but it turned red so I left it!
Ta for the advise, see yer termorra! Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 2, June 2006
|
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
| ||
|
The matter of the article History of the Beatles and the History section of the main article The Beatles continues to concern various editors, including DavidWBrooks and Vera, Chuck & Dave. Suggestions, comments, or help with the task would be much appreciated.
The Beatles have been in the real world news recently, but work on The Beatles Project continues as before. This newsletter keeps you up-to-date with what has been happening with the project and, perhaps more importantly, what needs to be done (see the "Issue of the Month" above and the "To Do List" below-left). If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy! Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 003 – July 2006). All and any contributions are welcome. Just let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or start editing!
| |
|
To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log. | ||
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? - It's all here
Champan
Spot on. I think I have some vauge form or arthritis, possibly a little A.D.D. and (I'm beginning to think) repetative strain injury so I sometimes make typing errors. Are you a Monty Python fan? Only your user page made me think so - "My name is Mark James Slater and this is who I am" sounds like the Ann Elk sketch. Also, you're about the same age as my Dad. Not that I shall hold that agaist you, but still. Interesting eh? Let's be friends --Crestville 02:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, your closer in age to my Mum.--Crestville 10:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm 98% with it being Eppy with the clothes. I've changed Astrid, If you get a mo, will you give the once over to see if it's ok please? Ta, Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your time and advice. Ta, Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, missed that thread, my page got rather busy!! I've replied (over there). Net net: I agree with you. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Gosh!
Hello Mark thanks for cleaning up my grammar etc on the new editions on the Penzance page in gratitude for all you have done with the penwith project I would like to award you the following
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| for your hard work cleaning up the Penwith articles Reedgunner 16:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC) |
.
Beatles
Alright? Ahhh, I think you're involved with the Beatles wikiproject and I want to improve a lot of these articles. The song pages range from very strong to quite weak - I want to work on this, but I am busy until the 16th of this month and will probably not have the appropriate sources until sometime in June. I also want to make the history page more comprehesinve.
I'm just telling you coz maybe you could spread the good word, so as to eleviate the problems which will be doubtlessly caused by my shoddy penmanship.
Aren't you glad the world didn't end yesterday?--Crestville 14:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I was listening to this podcast of a radio show from last night and they had this theory that the world would end on the 6/6/06 (666) so I thought I'd mention it. I'm quite glad.
- I was just surprised that some of the song articles are a touch weak. Like info boxes and that.
- Anyway, enjoy yourself. Who knows when the 6th of June 2106 might roll around!--Crestville 21:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Shagging dog stories
I can only imagine how you came to such a conclusion.--Crestville 15:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Autism and Poverty
Cut me some slack here...I can't cite AND strim the drive at same time - laptop gets covered in grass ;o), but as soon as the weather breaks...
There are LOADS of sources for this stuff, it's just a matter of finding time to dig up a couple of clear and reputable ones - thanks --Zeraeph 21:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
GM
Shit! Sussed again! Vera, Chuck & Dave 21:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Scorpio (astrology) article
I've been going through the articles on the signs and negating pro-astrological bias. This article was a particularly egregrious, as I see you've noticed. What do you think of the changes? I realize all the "citation needed" things may be a bit much, but since most people don't know anything about the specifics of astrology, and since every astrological claim is entirely arbitrary, I thought they needed some proof of validity (within the realm of astrology, I mean). --Tothebarricades 02:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 3, July 2006
|
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
| ||
|
Preparing articles for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
It was a bit of a struggle to get this month's newsletter done, as we did it without a lead editor. Hopefully, next month you'll jump in and be our lead editor. Big news is that WP:1.0 is coming along nicely and our article classification system has changed to conform to it. If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy! Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 004 – August 2006). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
| |
|
Complete To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log. | ||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
A favour to ask relating to WP:Beatles
Would you consider helping out with an important task? We need the comments made earlier migrated. See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles#Help_wanted which discusses the instructions for the task given here: Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Article Classification/Migrating. It would really help the project out a lot. Feedback on the instructions themselves gratefully received as well. ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Sock Puppets
I have a style now do I? Ahhh, no harm done, it kept me entertained for a while.--Crestville 14:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Beatles trivia on the chopping block
Dear Beatles editors, I have just seen a header that “The Beatles trivia“ is being considered for deletion. I would like you to take a look at it and vote to keep, or delete. The consensus will win the day, as they say…. I will not vote, as I have been personally involved in the construction of the page. andreasegde 01:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but no thanks for editing my work on the above article. All of the parts you re-introduced is merely copy and paste from other articles. I have noted what I have done on the AfD page with the rationale behind each change. Perhaps you'd like to explain the rationale for your actions there as well. The article is too long, repetitive and in many sub-parts serve no useful purpose. Perhaps it should be deleted afterall. --Richhoncho 12:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have explained my actions on the AfD talk page. You may believe it to be worthy of deletion, but it is not yet decided by the community - and I would have reverted your edits if I had agreed that the article should have been deleted. If it is decided to delete, then your editing would be pointless. If it is to be kept, then there is going to be duplications. If you want to join the Project, then you would be welcome to find better homes for all these bits of info.LessHeard vanU 12:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have now seen your comment on the AfD page. Obviously wasn't there when I posted here. I half agree with you that some of this article should survive (I voted keep and re-write early on in the discussion). There is no reason why any editor cannot edit an article on AfD, in fact it is encouraged. With your changes you have now put "Yellow Submarine" and "Free as a Bird" as Beatle trivia. Is that what you want? My original comments still stand, but I am not going to get into an edit conflict with you - In my opinion, in it's present form it is more likely to be deleted.--Richhoncho 12:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wholesale deletion of parts of the article may give a false impression of the article as nominated. I don't particulary like it, but that is POV. Even if the article is kept, much of it can be moved to more appropriate articles - which would not be possible if it is deleted. You will note that none of the "moved" info has been removed from whatever homes you found for them.LessHeard vanU 12:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Nothing is deleted, it's still in the history!!! and the only other article I touched I noted on the AfD. I checked every article before deleting to ensure there was no "lost" information, this is why, for instance, the Maharishi part wasn't touched by me. I was trying to save the article - even though I still think it needs a re-title and possible splitting. --Richhoncho 13:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
SPAG Help
Hello Mark, could you have a little look at Newlyn Riots for me I fully expect that my grammar spelling etc is as shocking as ever and could do with a brush up. Cheers Reedgunner 15:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi again Mark its Newlyn riots not as above - in the words of Homer Simpson D'OH!!!
Thank you mark for the SPAG - No typos - Thats a first Reedgunner 12:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
George Toogood Smith up for deletion
Alright me old salt? Just to let you know, the article on George Smith, John Lennon's uncle, who raised him as a son, is up for deletion. While I in no way wish for non-notable people to be given articles purely on the basis that they are related to someone famous, Smith was like a father to Lennon and integral but oftern overlooked key in The Beatles mythology (if that's the right word). He features prominantly in any other work on or about Lennon. Vital information that cannot reasonably be included in the Lennon article. The main problem is the unfortunate article title, which highlights close connotations to the fact that he is mainly famous for his relationship to Lennon. Other than that it is a desirable article for anyone wishing to learn about John Lennon. I just thought I'd give anyone interested the oppertuninty to voice their opinions here: [[3]]. Ta very much.--Crestville 14:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The Beatles Project
Thanks for the invite, but I suspect I shall be a thorn in everybody's side. I've met a few of the people in the backroom associated with the Beatles and they are not getting fair press.Also some of the "music business" information is so wrong it's not even worth bothering to discuss the matter. Too much opinion is going into the articles. Shame, the Beatles do deserve better at WP. However, if you want specific info feel free to ask. --Richhoncho 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Already tried broaching a subject on talk pages. See The Beatles Talk page. --Richhoncho 22:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Sweet F A
Hi, thanks for the message on my page - of course I'll be glad to lend a hand, albeit only itermitently at present. Hope everyone's OK at "the project"! Best wishes, Lion King 16:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
SPAG
Thanks for the SPAG - Do you think it has a shot at FA status given a bit of work? Mammal4 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Great minds think alike (and fools seldom differ!) see my comments at Talk WikiProject Penwith.LessHeard vanU 21:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 4, August 2006
|
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
| ||
Despite it being the lead news article of last month, there is still help required in the assessing of articles and the migrating of comments. Lar is willing to provide assistance to those unsure how to do this.
|
As mentioned in the Project News section, The Beatles article has just been listed for a review of its Featured Article status. Working on this is quite important. If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy! Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 005 – September 2006). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
| |
|
Complete To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log. | ||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
Come on in ... the water's fine
The debate has being going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Anons revert warring over England vs United Kingdom for about a week. At the moment it's just people throwing ideas in the ring, but maybe a guidelie will come out of it. Noisy | Talk 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Button
I tried to put that edit in first, but you got there first, WOOO go Jensen! :D T. Moitie [talk] 13:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Oasis & Birthdays
Ta very much mate. 20 now. Gaining on you. I sorted out that Oasis deal.--Crestville 20:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Disambiguation Problem with Beatles Article
In one of your beatles articles your ref the 'High Court', presumably High Court. There are High Courts all over the world. It has been copied to numerous locations on wikipedia. Would you mind doing the disambigs as it has created a lot of work. ta FedLawyer 12:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Capitalisation of The Beatles
Hi, hope your'e well. Iv'e got an american on my page going on about the capitalisation of The Beatles, and a style manual - I messaged Kingbonk about it on the 19th, asking him to help me out with him but he has not responded. I've asked this user to bring it up on the relevant discussion page, but he's just coming back at me . I wonder would you have a word with him please? Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Best wishes, Vera, Chuck & Dave 13:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 5, September 2006
|
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
| ||
|
The featured article status of The Beatles was revoked.
A month of slow progress and some amazing efforts. Still need help getting comments shifted. Don't forget to log your accomplishments! If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy! Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 006 – October 2006). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
| |
|
Complete To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log. | ||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
Newsletter
I would gladly, but what´s the link to the newsletter? I can´t find it. Am I being dim? --andreasegde 19:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
category bot
which category you complain about? -- Drini 20:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- It was Entertainers who died in their 40s. I saw the debate for the particular cat, and the No Concensus result, but later found the overall Category CfD - and the Delete result. No problem.LessHeard vanU 20:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- ok, the bot summaries always point the page with the discussion AND the changes being made. I just want to make clear so no misunderstandings remain, that I don't close based on vote counting, since CFD is not a vote. Basically the strong argument is that the category doens't have as much significance as birthyear categories, for instance. People born on the same year, share cultural background, etc, whereas people dying at the same age may share practically no common circumstances, therefore it's not a very meaningful way of grouping people. Therefore the decission. -- Drini 20:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I now understand. I only saw the result for the specific cat ("...40s") first - and had a friendly Admin point me toward the more appropriate place. I watch a lot of musician articles, and a great many die young, so I suddenly had a few hits on my watchlist. I'm learning.LessHeard vanU 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- ok, the bot summaries always point the page with the discussion AND the changes being made. I just want to make clear so no misunderstandings remain, that I don't close based on vote counting, since CFD is not a vote. Basically the strong argument is that the category doens't have as much significance as birthyear categories, for instance. People born on the same year, share cultural background, etc, whereas people dying at the same age may share practically no common circumstances, therefore it's not a very meaningful way of grouping people. Therefore the decission. -- Drini 20:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 6, October 2006
|
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
| ||
|
The lead article of the Project recently lost its FA status, and now some of the other articles are being reviewed. Citations and references within articles are again the major concern. Contributors who have literature (books, magazines, links, etc.) are especially needed to provide the necessary citations. It is not enough for editors to know the facts; they need to be backed up by other sources. All help, both within the articles and the discussion, would be appreciated.
If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy! Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 007 – November 2006). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing! Come back, Kingboyk! The children miss you!
| |
|
Complete To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log. | ||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
Newsletter
Hi, just got your message. Sorry I was unable to help but we were being run off our feet, (and wheels!) haven't had time to scratch me elbow! Cheers pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave 10:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
vandalism
No probs - I would have left it, but it was all in capitals (which from my vandalism patroling is quite common)and I thought that Egg was supposed to be insulting (Egghead?). I realise now that its probably an in joke! Take care Mammal4 07:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Update to Template:Update_after
Hi! I've made changes to Template:Update after (it now links to Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating and As of), and made significant changes to the documentation at Template:Update_after (including documenting the built-in ability to add a comment, and a changes in where it's allowable to be used); please review, and provide comments at Template talk:Update after if you think any are appropriate. Thanks! --Scott McNay 03:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC).
I agree
(I counted to ten, then on to twenty, bit my lip and removed my previous response.) Good grief - that made me laugh a lot. How often have I thought that I should do that? (I'm still laughing...) Brilliant.... :) --andreasegde 17:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I did (and laughed a lot) but I thought it wise to not feed him. I doffed my cap, tugged my forelock, and made my apologies. As he doesn't sign in, I wonder who he really is?
- BTW, thanks a lot for the compliment. It really made my day. (I'm glad I didn't add the comment, "Which hand does he scratch his arse with?") That would have really made him hopping-mad... :) --andreasegde 19:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, it's very simple really. After all the work that Andreasedege had put into the article, you get Kingboyk come in, move the goal posts, then someone else says that he should be greatful they've been moved! He's pissed off, I'm pissed off, then to top it all he dosen't stand his ground, and backs down. I know we're all different, but I always stand my ground, and I would never have done anymore work until the pair of them had apologised.
- Well I don't know who said that but they totally and utterly missed the point. This is a wiki. Anyone can edit, and anyone can make major changes. I didn't do it for a laugh, I did it to help create a better article. And, you know what, the article is taking shape very nicely now with a structure we've all agreed on - and it looks rather like the new structure I put in which caused all the fuss in the first place.
- Yes, I changed the goal posts a bit: I had the strikers aim at Featured Article not "in 1958 he did this, in 1959 he did this, in 1960" snoozefest crud. --kingboyk 15:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, it's very simple really. After all the work that Andreasedege had put into the article, you get Kingboyk come in, move the goal posts, then someone else says that he should be greatful they've been moved! He's pissed off, I'm pissed off, then to top it all he dosen't stand his ground, and backs down. I know we're all different, but I always stand my ground, and I would never have done anymore work until the pair of them had apologised.
Also, how many names on the participants list? 50 odd? And how many of them have made any constructive contributions, 6? 7? No, I don't think that the project is the right place for someone of my temprament (and training) Take care, best wishes, Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Norrifa catch yer first la! Take care, Vera, Chuck & Dave 02:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The Beatles
Hola, it was patent vandalism and I reverted my self because I mistook the edit. This was the afd nom summary--What\'s all the hype? This was a stupid quartet of dumb drugged up fags from the start. --BishNit85 22:34, ...' (and the only contributor was 'BishNit85')). Thanks.--Dakota 00:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
...for your kind message. Funny that, my wife said I should have used me head! Oh BTW, you mean we get issued with axes then? Cheers La, Vera, Chuck & Dave 04:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Cornwall WikiProject
Does SW Kerrier include or exclude Gweek, please? ===Vernon White (talk) 23:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Gweek
I did some modifications to this page, following a guided tour with the Constantine History Group. However, if you are interested in Gweek, I'll move the boundary of South EAST Cornwall to the edge of Constantine Civil Parish. Going to bed now. Goodnight! === Vernon White (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Macca
Yeah, that's what Macca said. I didn't want to put too much in, but I could explain it a bit more, such as them knowing Epstein was "queer", but not caring about it too much. What d'think? --andreasegde 22:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- It was from McCartney's own words, and from Barry Miles's book, which was written with the full co-operation of McCartney. I quoted/paraphrased/referenced it exactly as was said. I see no reason (in this day and age) why it should be a sensitive area. (I noticed that it was mentioned (in passing) on Epstein's page, which I thought was 'queer', if you'll pardon the expression. :) --andreasegde 04:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 7, November 2006
|
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
| ||
Again, the issue of the month is inline citations. A Day in the Life, A Hard Day's Night (song), and Get Back have all been defeatured, as they failed to satisfy criterion 1(c) of What is a featured article?, and other song FAs are due for the chopping block. Inline citations are an important aspect of articles—they ensure verifiability and reliability, and they remove original research. Additionally, they give readers the option to read the original source material and view it within context. Basically:
|
Wherever possible, editors should help to trim down on list-like prose within Beatles articles. They should convert list-like sections into fluent, cohesive prose which ties an article's sections together. Lists make articles disjointed, awkward, and difficult to read. Be sure to take part in the Featured Article drive, and don't forget those inline citations! If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy! Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 008 – December 2006). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
| |
|
Complete To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log. | ||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
While things were happening ...
... I replied on my Talk page. Hu 21:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Good chatting with you, and good luck with the Beatles project, a band that will last as long as Shakespeare has and will. Hu 22:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Macca
Thanks for the comments about the Lead. I've cut it down a lot, so it doesn't make one go temporarily blind when reading it. Do you think the article could be nominated for an FA in the near future? (Sound of fingers, legs and arms being crossed :)) --andreasegde 14:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. It has undergone a major facelift (and plenty more than Zsa Zsa Gabor has had) so we think it is almost ready. Thanks anyway. --andreasegde 21:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Re:
I haven't joined the Project as I don't really have time to make any major contributions towards the Project, and additionally I don't own any of the hard literature (ie. books) which are heavily needed with such a project. All I've done really is lend some advice on some Beatles articles, and that's it - Andreasdge does most of the work, him and Kingboyk. Also it's not for what spare time |I've got really, so committing my name to the Project feels like an insult towards the Project really. LuciferMorgan 00:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello
Hello, Mark James Slater. My name is Andrew Edge, but you might know me as Andreasegde. I truly appreciate your comments, and I thank you. --andreasegde 20:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Give Macca a quick SPAG - it would be appreciated. --andreasegde 17:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Uhh.. changing "constantly" to "consistently" in the Jane Asher section was brilliant (as well as the other wonderful edits) and you had to deal with a vandal at the same time! Nice one. Me (you know who) --andreasegde 00:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Guess who's older than you? (Don't spread it about though, because I like the idea that some editors think I'm a young spraffer wot don't know his Ps from his Qs...) --212.241.67.98 12:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hiding behind an IP address does make it difficult... ;) LessHeard vanU 13:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Guess who's older than you? (Don't spread it about though, because I like the idea that some editors think I'm a young spraffer wot don't know his Ps from his Qs...) --212.241.67.98 12:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I saw you comment on the article and started a poll on the talk page, as well as opened 2 RfCs on it. I think a couple of editors are simply holding the article hostage with the tag to discredit it. If so, they'll clearly be outnumbered and the tag could then easily be removed. —Hanuman Das 04:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
You placed a cleanup tag on the above article. I have now wikified (as far as possible, it needs references/citations) said article, and if you want to review it and remove (or replace with wikify template) the tag then please do. Cheers.LessHeard vanU 01:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for tidying it up. Cheers, Cmdrjameson 15:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter Issue 8, December 2006
|
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
| ||
Wikipedia's standards are improving all the time, with the result that many articles in The Beatles Wikiproject are being nominated for review of their FA and GA status - and many are losing that accolade. It is difficult, with such a large number of articles and the ease with which editors may make changes which are detrimental, to maintain the standard of articles, let alone improve them. As ever, members efforts are both appreciated and needed to keep the Project on course.
|
If one is to be mercenary about the subject, it should be noted that Paul McCartney is going to be more noteworthy than usual in the near future as his divorce case comes to court. In that case it is great to note that a small group of Project Members (plus another individual who does not feel compelled to register himself despite important contributions) have worked very hard, and in an atmosphere of good humour, to take the McCartney piece to a succesful Good Article nomination. Perhaps this is the method to use for future articles, a small dedicated team concentrating on one subject at a time. Of course, all members are invited to join any existing group or even go about forming their own. Please note any such action in the Project Log. If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy! Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 009 – January 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
| |
|
Complete To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log. | ||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
Macca, again
We need your vote on Macca's talk page about which section to fork. (1,000 words less and we have it in the bag...) --andreasegde 05:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikibreak
Thanks for the kind words. I may take a break and come back in a little while after Christmas as I am finding it increasingly difficult to justify my wikitime what with work commitments. As far as the project goes I think it really needs someone to take charge and spell out exactly what needs to be done. At the moment the only success seems to have been the placing of the project template on relevent discussion pages by anonomous users, which i suspect has more to do with territorial marking than a genuine interest to help the project. Anyway, have a good Christmas. Will hopefully be back in the new year Mammal4 10:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Jahbulon
No need for apology - it was a good idea to post that information (I've struck through my comment there on the talk page about not adding it back). I was trying to make the point to those trying to delete the article, that they are wasting their time on side issues. I didn't make the point very well. ॐ Priyanath talk 14:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Lennon
A suggestion has been made on the John Lennon talk page about how much information should go in. It would be nice of you to add a comment, if you wish to... --andreasegde 14:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Cheers
Thanks less - I wanted to save it quick because my wife was grtting what she describes as 'wikipedia rage' - I will give the sand box ago next time!!!Reedgunner 10:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Vera etc.
Well he seems to think the BBC is a good source, and I've quoted their style guide, so I'm not sure what else he can expect. Though simply writing out the abbreviation should make it pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain — he can't be "awarded a Member of the Order of the British Empire" unless the UK's brought back slavery and the Royal Household has thereupon instituted the practice of handing out people as prizes. Proteus (Talk) 23:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- He wasn't polite to me when reverting, and I see he makes a habit of being rude, so I'm not going to make any special efforts to be nice to him. He's wrong, there is an abundance of data, both on Wikipedia and on the internet at large, that shows him to be wrong, and I'm not wasting my time explaining English grammar to him when he should learn about a subject before pontificating on it. Proteus (Talk) 23:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Gun in my hand? What gun in my hand?
I've a limited access to internet at uni, but I'm home for Chrim so I thought I'd get stuck into a good old Beatles scrap! How are you old timer? (that's an elbow-in-the-ribs joke). Hered "Love" yet?--Crestville 23:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
item 6
LOL Tvoz 23:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's it B Z Body tell the whole world whydontcha - I don't stand a chance of blaggin em now! Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- LOl! Speaking of Tvoz, have a look at Macca's article, I think she may have solved it, I think it's a good edit and one which works, BTW is the site slow tonight? Cheers La, Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Glad you like it - as I said somewhere, I don't care either way. But I hope you all appreciate how I spelled "honored". And yes, the system sucks tonight. Tvoz 00:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- Never too late for a good pun Mr.Bod! Iv'e just informed the good lady (above) that the problem is arising because whilst an MBE is Awarded it is also an Appointment and if it's got the BBC confused, just think what it's doing to a bog standard Firebobby! Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave 01:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Merry Crimbo!
Hope you have a good one! Cheers La, Vera, Chuck & Dave 11:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
MBE
There are 10 Orders, all of which are AWARDS, there is 1 APPOINTMENT that of "Knight Bachelor", to Men Only.[6] Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: speedy tag for Krishami
Yes, you are right it had to be deleted, just that your rationale was invalid. Just because an article is unreferenced of unwikified does not merit deletion. An article can be deleted if it is about something (like a garage band or vanity article or nonsense) that does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. It's a good idea to review WP:CSD. Anyway, you are doing a good job and I hope you'll keep it up. Renata 21:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Comments
I always love reading your comments. "Wag my eyebrows at you" being one of many. Brilliant. andreasegde 18:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Apology
- Thanks, but you have absolutely no need to apologise. It was entirely me, and I apologise wholeheartedly. Hopefully I've calmed down a bit now. Proteus (Talk) 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The Beatles and forking articles
I have a problem that I would like to impart to all you good 'Beatles project' editors, and it is this:
- Should anything directly Beatles-related be in the main Beatles' article, and only 'personal' stuff put into the Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr articles? I have the disturbing feeling that I'm repeating stuff in both Lennon and McCartney articles that should only be in the main article.
- But... if only personal stuff is included in the individual Beatles' articles, would it make them too confusing/random, to read?
Please answer (on a stamped and self-addressed postcard please) on our talk page. (This might be more interesting than talking about MBEs... :) andreasegde, Mr Hornby, and Sir Sean de Garde 15:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Praa Sands
Hi. It is no big problem, but if there is a good reference for older pronounciations then great! I'm a grockle from Carleen and I have had my head bitten off a few times when mis-speaking the local names; so I might be a little oversensitive... Cheers.LessHeard vanU 23:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that if there's a reference for the other version then it should be added. I reverted to the previous version since I could fine no reference to older pronunciations after a brief search and even if it is accurate then stating "other pronunciations are incorrect" covers it for the present. --Cherry blossom tree 00:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The Beatles Discography
What is the point of having a band discography then? There is absolutley no reason for publishing the same info twice. It may look nice to a fan but that does not justifie its presence. I will remove it always. User:NoPrisoners
- What is the point of having a talk page, or even a Project, if one individual decides that they alone are the arbiter of what constitutes appropriate content. This is a co-operative (hence wiki) venture, friend; take your point of view to the (talk:The Beatles|talkpage) and see if you can convince folk. LessHeard vanU 23:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well it seems you alone have taken it upon themselves to keep this pointless section, I hope you will see your error here and not succumb to fan wank User:NoPrisoners
- No I'm just a member of the Project who got to the edit button first (others are probably enjoying their Saturday night elsewhere). Your contrib history shows that you are new and, unless you are a new account for another user, you may soon find that more people will disagree with your methods and policy. I repeat, Wikipedia is built by concensus; WP:Bold, WP:IAR and WP:Good faith may sustain you initially, but you will need to persuade people to the viability of your arguments if you are going to continue on this path. LessHeard vanU 23:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 9, January 2007
|
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
| ||
|
The question of capitalising of the letter "t" in The of The Beatles has been raised again. It appears that UK style references (here and here) also maintains that the letter should be in lower case. If the Project is to be appear professional then it may have to change the format. Polite discussion is invited at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy. If possible, please provide sources/references to support your position.
It has been a fairly quiet time with regard to the Project (or at least that is how it seems). If you are reading this and wondering why your efforts in respect of a Beatles article has not been mentioned, it may be that you haven't told any editor. This is your Newsletter, which means you can contribute to it, so please do! If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy! Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 010 – January/February 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
| |
|
Complete To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log. | ||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
Mary ann lenneghan
I am not sure that you have offended anyone and have no idea if you have. I think that you may have just made a simple error and pressed preview page and the forgotten to press save page. I have done this bfore thinking i have made edits and havent. Check your contribution logs it will definatly show up there if you did save any changes. I doubt you have upset anyone and am sure you would have been informed if you had so don't worry and I'm sure it was only a simple mistake. Happy editing :)--Lucy-marie 11:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Multiple personalities
It said, in the last Beatles' newsletter, that "Sir Sean de Garde appears to have developed multiple personalities." This is very true (and made me laugh an awful lot) but it is necessary when one is faced with talking to one on one's pages that one has contributed to. (Work that one out... :) The changing of one's name brings tremendous amusement to one - as other editors are wont to do the same. I refer you to members, Vera, Chuck, and Dave, LessHeard vanU, and Crestville, who have given one a terrific amount of pleasure in the general 'laughing gear' area, because of their inovative choices of Nom de plumes. One can only hope that this practice does not offend one's own sense of normality. One can only live in hope. :)) Who am I? 20:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I like the Trumpton reference but the rest went over my head. I thought I was the only one who knew all the firemen. And Windy Miller.--Crestville 20:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Barney McGrew anyone? Better than 'The Woodentops'. andreasegde 19:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know...
But I'm so sick and freaking tired of removing it. That has to be the fifth time I've done it this month, and it's a very POV statement. --Wikify me, captain! 22:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry, I've been longer than my few edits and new account would imply. --Wikify me, captain! 22:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Tearooms: Excellent joke old chap - it had me in stitches. Keep up the good work :)) andreasegde 19:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Pretty Pussies
How the eff did you know it was a knockin shop? -spooky! Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Imposter
Lol... who's this geezer following Sir Sean around and telling 'im he's a dipstick? Give that man a medal (Oops, he's already got one - bugger... :) Sir Sean hereby voluntarily revokes his membership of the 'Smarty-pants Club' in Mayfair.
Hold on, this man is calling himself Vera, Dave and Chuck! Something fishy here, methinks... :) I Heard Less van U 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Nomination
I've just nominated Macca for FA, but I'm not sure if I did it right. Can you check it? andreasegde 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
To let you know
I'm firmly on your side with everything you said at the village pump, and If they want you, they go through me first pal! Cheers La, Vera, Chuck & Dave 04:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Now come on Vera, you know you couldn't punch your way out of a wet paper bag at the moment, but the thought is there. Bless. (I can't fight for toffee, BTW... :)
- Anyway - I don't know if LessHeard's comments will keep the zealot vultures away, but we could try to ignore them on the pages a bit more, and not get ourselves in long discussions about whether one tiny sentence should be changed or not. We know who we are, do we not? Let's not let the ............ (insert insulting word here) grind us down, and distract us. Mr Softy "Mine's a 99!" 07:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've got the very thing for you, my dearest LessHeard vanU. I have just been delving into the Macca FA review and I have found some very 'effin interesting stuff. Have a read at the end of the review to see something surprising regarding the Wiki manual of style, and who they cite. The game is afoot, my dear Watson! en and em-dashes, my mother's ar#e... andreasegde, who is a bit miffed 07:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
well...
I haven't changed my mind about that, no. It's not the way things should be done, and the response I got when I objected (politely, I thought) was really unacceptable. I don't care one way or the other, really, about the subject - it's the principle that bothers me. Thanks for asking - that was sweet of you - you can participate if you feel like it, I won't hold it against you. (of course if you want to tell the guy he's an arrogant prick, I won't mind that either.... nah, I'm kidding. No point in doing that.) By the way, good for you over on the watering hole or whatever that place is called - you are totally right. I'll say so too. Tvoz | talk 20:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm
I noticed you've said that GAR and FAR are much the same at [[7]]. I'll have to disagree that GAR is the same as FAR. FAR notifies all relevant Wikiprojects, and the original FA nominator regarding the article being subject to review - this is done 100% of the time, unlike GAR. Furthermore, consensus is used at FAR, whereas at GAR anyone can remove GA status. A quote below;
"It is made by editors who are (despite their commendable enthusiasm and diligence) stupid, rather pointless and liable to insult those contributors to major topics with their nitpicking and arrogant, superior attitudes."
Since I was the one responsible for a lot of the Beatles articles FA status, and two Beatles related articles losing GA status, I guess this comment is meant to include myself? I'm not really bothered about your comments regarding the GAR process, but comparing it to FAR is rather insulting, though of course you're entitled to your own opinions. I invite you to pop in sometime to FAR though, and see we ain't as bad as people think and are very amiable, and not to base your opinions about FAR on a bad GAR incident. I hope you'll come to see the differences between the two. Take care. LuciferMorgan 03:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- On that occasion though it was GAR that was being overzealous - I don't mind you having a go, you have every right, but the GAR situation as concerns the Beatles article has absolutely nothing to do with FAR. FAR allows you a few weeks to help articles etc. and works with editors, unlike what GAR seems to be. They're two totally different things in my eyes. I don't think you should face consequences for speaking your mind and hope you don't, but basing your opinion about FAR on a GAR situation is a little ignorant to be honest. The editors are different altogether, though it's up to you how you formulate your opinions. LuciferMorgan 21:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- GAR is a piece of cake. FAR is like being stripped naked, doused in petrol and people holding a match under your testicles to see if you flinch or not. I would rather boil my head than go through that process again. Who the fu*k wrote the Wikipedia manual of style? Apparently nobody. It's just a light that comes from within, your Worship... andreasegde 10:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with FAR Andreas - people just have to listen to what other reviewers say. The fact many Beatles FAs were removed is because they were substandard, and I have no regrets about nominating them. I don't see why others should have had to work their asses off to strive for FA while those articles were there and weren't even half as good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs) 11:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
He's fallen in the water!
Waht does LessHeard vanU actually mean Dad?--The presumably illegitimate Crestville 17:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, guv'nor I fought you was a cock-er-ney flower. My most humble apologies. Do you know Chas and Dave? Snooker Loopy Nuts Are We
- Ah-hah! You are quoting Mike Silligan with the water comment. Now tell me I'm old and stupid, if you dare.... Les Dennis's internal organs 10:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The Beatles Trivia
They're at it again - trying to delete it. See the discussion page. The Beatles Trivia "delete" page. andreasegde 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you look at the history page of the review last year in July, and this one now, it's a bloke called Worldtraveller who put it up both times. He specifically mentions The Beatles trivia on his own talk page as something that pisses him off. He's got a bee in his bonnet about it, that's for sure. andreasegde 21:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- He will love what I have just written, then! LessHeard vanU 21:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Why does it keep getting put up for deletion? Some people.--Crestville 15:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- He will love what I have just written, then! LessHeard vanU 21:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, why are they all still going at it? I thought you closed it! Cheers la, Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- No it is not closed, by Jiminy. Get yer work-shy rear-end over there, Crestville, and give 'em, err... that bit under the Earth that's really hot and sticky. 'L', that's the word. Jim Davidson's sperm sac
Little Freddie Lennon has been put for a GAR. Would someone look at it for stupid mistakes, and give it a wipe with a damp cloth? andreasegde 09:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you change your delist on the Fabs GA review? andreasegde 09:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- No problem at all with the newsletter. Thanks for mentioning Mimi, BTW. I'm saving my pocket money to buy a six-pack when Freddie and Julia get a GA.
- Re: Macca. I'm tempted to say that it should be drastically reduced in size, and loads more information forked off. I think that is its only chance to reach the higher echelons of FA zealots' article standards. andreasegde 12:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Standards are in place for many reasons Andreas - I keep saying to submit the article for peer review, but my plea is falling on deaf ears. If you took the time to submit the article, you'd get feedback on how to improve it. Perhaps listening to advice would help the article get to FA? LuciferMorgan 11:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Cbing01 screwing Past Masters article
Please investigate CBing01's tampering of the Past Masters, Volume Two article. Steelbeard1 17:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. As per your suggestion, discussion continues at Talk:Past Masters, Volume Two. Steelbeard1 21:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Project
I've added the template to my user page, but am unsure how to subscribe to the newsletter. Any help or suggestions? Thanks, Cbing01 23:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Policy Discussion : Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions.
Hey, I wasn't trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by nominating that essay as policy. I have no vested interest in the article either way, I just honestly think that we will be better off with a consensus on the matter. Sorry for any confusion.--CastAStone|(talk) 04:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism
Bloody people vandalising my page. Harrumph. I wouldn't mind but I can't think of anyone I've had an argument with recently. As I thank you I interjected with your man on the John Lennon page and hopefully made him look silly. thus undermining his supposed authority.--Crestville 10:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
'Macca' Oh yeah, I would surely do that. Then again—as you so rightly said—it would be foolish to restrict a 'flagship' article to the rules that FA articles are governed by. "Between a rock and a hard place", as they say. andreasegde 18:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 10, February 2007
|
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
| ||
I look from the wings at the play you are staging While my guitar gently weeps As I'm sitting here doing nothing but aging Still my guitar gently weeps On the reverse of the page appears the lyrics to Hey Jude in the hand of Mal Evans.
|
Hottest issue or concern for this month is the perennial matter of Project articles losing their Good or Featured Article status. The main Project page now includes a status board that gives the current ratings of some of the more important articles. Let's make sure the core articles (The Beatles, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr) reach or retain Good Article status, if not Featured Article. If you are aware of another major article whose status is at risk, add it to the board.
Since there has been no response in the matter of the use of lowercase for the initial letter of the when applied with Beatles from the opponents, it is likely that the case for using lowercase only will be adopted as Project policy by default. User:LessHeard vanU will draw up a recommendation and submit it to the Policy talkpage in a few days.
We are pleased to welcome the contributions of Alexcalamaro to this newsletter. Any editor can include an item of interest or news; this medium can be an excellent tool for getting a comment seen by a great number of project members. As it says below, this is your newsletter. If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 011 – March 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
| |
|
Complete To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log. | ||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
delivered by ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 03:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there!!!! This may be the LAST The Beatles project newsletter you receive!
Why? Because we believe you are inactive or possibly inactive. If you want to move yourself back to active, and get copies going forward, please remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Outreach/Newsletter/PossiblyInactive and add yourself to Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Outreach/Newsletter/Active. Thanks for your interest in the project. This may be the last notice you will receive, it depends on whim. ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 03:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC) (SNORT!)
Hint
Taken, and acted upon! Cheers Our Mark! Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Trivia
The Beatles trivia is now "The Beatles' miscellanea". Let the trivia zealots boil their heads in oil... andreasegde 21:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Your'e most welcome! Don't worry too much, there's always a bit of buckshot that goes astray! Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- The real second deletion: The 2nd deletion I have tried to put it in, but I'm buggered if I can.andreasegde 16:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
hahahahahaha
I don't get the newsletter - not sure why, I'll have to check into that - and I had absolutely no idea what your note on my page meant - including when I looked at the issue.... but just saw the reference and am laughing my ass off. Tell the boys I appreciate that they are scared of me - it never worked with my kids, so I'm glad someone thinks I'm formidable! Sorry I've been a bit absent from Beatles-related things - I've been busy in what they call "real life" and also got caught up in editing Hillary CLinton and Barack Obama - but I'll be back again. Ouch, ok, it's after midnight and I had a bit too much wine with dinner. Cheers - say hi for me to the gang! Tvoz | talk 05:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
RE WELCOME BACK
Cheers Mark!!! Had to get away from the Nutters for a few days Simon
Yeh agreed - I actually have been looking for something else for a while Reedgunner 16:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
LessHeard vanU re LuciferMorgan/SandyGeorgia
Hi LessHeard,
As I said on LM's talk, it is really just tangents on top of tangents. We certainly don't need more of those, and I apologize if my mentioning you, troubled you. To put it really simply I saw "fuck off", and thought "hey, not fair--SandyGeorgia is a bang-up editor." If you and Sandy have worked it out, no more trouble needed from me. Marskell 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
the Beatles
Thanks for pointing out on my talk page that the "the" policy had been changed. I've been working on it for several hours now. I noted your suggestion that someone create an automated thing (a "bot" I think you called it). I worry that it would potentially change more "the"s than it should, but then again I don't know anything about how sophisticated a bot can be programmed to be. In any case, thanks for seeing the debate through.McTavidge 04:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is great news. Thanks LessHeard. (I second McTavidge's concerns regarding a bot. Of course we will want to make sure it doesn't lowercase anything at the beginning of a sentence or quotation.) --Lukobe 18:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also when the name The Beatles is first used, irrespective of where it appears in a sentence? Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I would say so, and kick 'em in the pants if they don't say so. (Less Heard has got a Barnstar, BTW.) andreasegde 20:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Genuinely chuffed about both Barnstars. Thank you. LessHeard vanU 20:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
In that case, you can have a fish as well! That's the way Cod planned it.
- Thank you, Mark. I'll keep my word and begin editing accordingly.—Jack Yan 00:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Mark, a postscript. I see you couldn't resist a final paragraph on my talk page. I thought we had got over this on the discussion page, as men. You fired one at me. I fired one back. Let’s just edit away for the good of Wikipedia, OK?—Jack Yan 12:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
I think it belongs here as well, so that other people can see it.
|
The Surreal Barnstar | |
| "The Surreal Barnstar may be awarded to any Wikipedian who adds a 'special flavour' to the community by acting as a sort of wildcard". I gladly award this Barnstar to LessHeard vanU, who has no fear of lesser beings, and who is a genuinely committed editor. I thank him profusely. andreasegde 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC) |
The beat-less 'article'
So, it's now the Beatles, is it? Every mention of The Band should be changed (in the middle of a sentence) to the Band. "At the gig, Bob Dylan and the Band.... which means his 'backing band', and not The Band. Explanation:
- "I saw the Band tonight."
- "Which band?"
- "The Band!"
- "I watched the beetles tonight."
- In your kitchen again?"
- No, The Beatles!
It's a question of emphasis... andreasegde 17:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is no such tome. It is called English. We learned it when we were babes, and it is still changing... The style books are all written by Americans (sorry, Americans) because they desire style. Check the Wikipedia:Manual of Style page - it has NO references from a book. Why should we "give up the ghost" under pressure from our American friends?
- I am not being aggressive here - I am only reacting against the idea that "Heavy industry" should not be written as "heavy industry", and that the Beatles should be "The Beatles". The emphasis is paramount. andreasegde 00:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Applying new "the" policy
Hi, LessHeard, I got your note. I'm so glad this whole debate was finally settled, and that we're using the professionally accepted conventions. I'd be happy to help apply this policy to an article (or articles) that need it, if you would like to direct me to any (I see The Beatles has already been fixed). I'll do what I can with the time I have. Thanks for the heads up! —simpatico talk 05:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
From viewing the "Beatles redux" on The Beatles talk page, yes, I was under the impression that policy had been changed. Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia, Consensus, The Beatles and Project Policy
I was going to step away from this, since I was only going by the rules and I didn't want to get into a big dispute (especially with editors who I respect and have enjoyed working with), but recent events have brought me back.
The debate about naming the convention regarding the capitalisation or not of the letter "t" of the in t/The Beatles has been going on for a while. I have endured the snide remarks of a Twit, and have engaged in civil debate with some others who continued to question Project policy regarding the issue. I pointed out the need to establish a reasonable argument for their viewpoint over and above that of some professional knowledge so there could be a debate. When they did provide reasonable grounds for reopening the debate I used the offices of the Beatles Newsletter Issue 9:Issue of the Month to request comment, debate on the matter. There was no response. In the next Newsletter Issue 10:Issue of last Month I commented that there had been no response, and that the Project policy would be altered to use of the lowercase. Again, nobody other than the proponents responded. After a brief while I did as I said I would, and amended the Policy.
Belated reaction
The new Policy is not to the liking of some of the editors involved the the Beatles Project (as the previous one was not to others.) After the policy was implemented reasons and arguments for retaining the previous convention were given. Authorities were cited and some discussion was created. Very recently more than one editor has edited Beatles related articles specifically to reflect the previous policy.
My Comments
My preference is to capitalise the letter t of the in the Beatles.
Wikipedia has very few rules; two of the most important relate to consensus and verifiability.
Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles has a specific area for the implementation (following debate and consensus) of Policy. The associate talkpage records the debate and the arguments used in reaching Policy decisions. The Project also maintains the principle of abiding by the rules that have been agreed, and the fundemental Wikipedia ethos of consensus.
My Observations
No recent discussion occurred when the matter of the use of lowercase or uppercase was notified in two Newsletters, other than between myself and the proponenets of lowercase at the Policy talkpage. Since Policy implementation discussion has only occurred on the talkpages of concerned editors, or on the talkpages of some of the articles, and not at the Policy talkpage.
More than one editor has unilaterally decided to ignore the new Policy, going so far as to amend articles to reflect the previous convention.
My Conclusion(s)
The Beatles Project is being disrupted by editors who I personally know to be conscientious and dedicated contributors of long and good standing. In that there is now occurring what might be considered vandalism (the knowing altering of articles in a manner that is against Wikipedian and Project rules and policy), likely as a result of their strongly held views, I believe that this matter needs urgent addressing. I am copying this to the Policy talkpage, and to all the editors involved in formulating the new policy and the recent opponents. I suggest that this debate is taken there, and that this matter is decided in a civil manner in accordance with the principles of Wikipedia.
I am deeply saddened that it has come to this. I am depressed that editors (people) whose integrity and civility (not to say sheer fun) I had been proud to be associated with have acted in (what I see as) bad faith and flagrant disregard for the rules and guidelines of both Wikipedia and The Beatles Project. LessHeard vanU 23:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The "The/the" policy reevaluation
Thanks for your new comments on the "The/the" dispute. Strong legal citations have emerged which indicate that "The Beatles" should be used as it is a registered trademark. Check out this discussion [8] which includes a link to the UK Patent Office which proves that "The Beatles" as well as "Beatles" are registered trade marks of Apple Corps Ltd. The actual link is at [9]. So does legal reasons trump grammatical reasons? Steelbeard1 03:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
beatles newsletter
I don't seem to be on the subscriber list. Could you add me? Thanks! --Lukobe 01:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, you do that. Ar Eh Mark, you should never turn on your own - Never turn on your own. Vera, Chuck & Dave 03:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The The pop band
Dear LessHeard, the current policy is only what the current policy is. It will never be agreed upon wholeheartedly, ever, or ever. As you yourself said, dictionaries are 50/50 split (three against three) about it. Who are we to bicker about policy, when the professionals don't agree with each other? We should all get back to articles (meaning the GA type). Funnily enough, the FA crowd NEVER mentioned that 'The/the' problem when they failed Macca—not once. My best wishes. andreasegde 21:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- You're not getting flak - we are. You happen to have the unfortunate position of being the piggy in the middle. We still love you. How about that pint in a pub with an open fire and a packet of crisps? andreasegde 22:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- If ever you are in Cornwall...! It's okay, I have been hardline Liberal all my life (middle of the road is the most dangerous place on the (information super)highway) and am used to slugging it out - often on my lonesome. If the debate had (re)started a month ago... all those articles you have been stewarding would not have done so well. LessHeard vanU 22:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- To get a GA I would have changed them, but only if there was a concensus between a substantial number of editors. This will all blow over. Have a look at the Status Board—doesn't it look better than before? BTW, they should all be Good Articles. Status Board Who's next - Mal or Brian? andreasegde 22:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- If ever you are in Cornwall...! It's okay, I have been hardline Liberal all my life (middle of the road is the most dangerous place on the (information super)highway) and am used to slugging it out - often on my lonesome. If the debate had (re)started a month ago... all those articles you have been stewarding would not have done so well. LessHeard vanU 22:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- You're not getting flak - we are. You happen to have the unfortunate position of being the piggy in the middle. We still love you. How about that pint in a pub with an open fire and a packet of crisps? andreasegde 22:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's important. Upper case, lower case, I really don't think it matters. There's no need to argue over it really. There are bigger problems with the article--Crestville 23:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- The (the?) Beatles article. For example, never once is it mentioned that "I'm Only Sleeping" is a really, really good song. Or that "You're Mother Should Know" is a really, really shit song.--Crestville 16:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hey Bulldog has the worst lyrics I have ever been subjected to. This is a totally meaningless post, so please throw it in the bin... :) ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
No
They're only 10, but I've just called a friend who has a degree in English, an she says The Beatles is a proper noun and should be Capped. It's also in Wiktionary.
Sorry for misunderstanding what you said, I was very tired an just shot from the hip, sorry pal. Cheers La, Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'll Fuckin phone her again terfuckinmorra!! Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- You timed that well, I was just off to bed! Should know Monday or Tuesday. Cheers La, Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Aright our Mark? It looks like the "Brain Box" is just paying lip service, she's made no attempt to find out! When I take the girls in I'll have a word with their teacher an see what she can come up with. Cheers La, Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Spoke with their teacher today and she agrees that it should be capitalised, even if it's by virtue of the fact that they are words used as names The Windy City etc. She says that she will try and lay her hands on a GCSE course work thingy, OK? Cheers La, Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
B.C.
Intitals of Senior Div.(div being the operative word!) Officer, phoned me up, an did his bollocks! I 've called the brain box again and she is going to try and get the course book from a friend on Monday - She doesn't teach, she works in advertising. BTW, all the books written by Alan Clayson about The Fabs, capitalise The Beatles throughout, I don't know if that's any help in the meantime? Cheers Our Kid, Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Right, just to let you know that she's tracked down a teacher! She is going to speak with him termorra at school, and ask the dreaded question, what ever the answer, she will pass on the details of the course book they are using. Cheers La. Bongo O'Starkers
Breath Holding
Thanks for the note on my page. Helps put things in perspective. McTavidge 02:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It's that time again?
It's apparently just about that time again... ish 11's awaiting your gentle ministrations... LMK (see the talk there) what you need, if anything, from me... That's assuming you can't palm the whole job off on some other fellah. PS, I saw your note on McT's talk, you're a good sort, you know that? Well said. ++Lar: t/c 21:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Useful template
 | The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. (August 2019) |
for the very many USAcentric articles found on Wikipedia LessHeard vanU 00:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Mark, I've cited the source for the hair cuts in her article but they've not "come out". Will you see what I dun rong please? Cheers La, Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Looks to me that you got it right. Perhaps your computer cache hadn't updated when you looked? LessHeard vanU 10:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers Mark, damn thing is probley conkin out! Vera, Chuck & Dave 13:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Template comments
No problem on mentioning the templates on my User page. I recently added a link to them on some other page where someone was discussing changes to the production templates. I'll be glad to get feedback on them. John Cardinal 14:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter, Issue 11, March 2007
|
WikiProject The Beatles Newsletter
| ||
|
See below. There is genuine concern that the Newsletter is getting stale in terms of content and variety, and that the same individuals are featured each month. Furthermore, lack of "news" is hindering the timely distribution as the editors wait for something to report. All Project editors are encouraged to give their news, suggestions and thoughts to keep the 'Letter vital and interesting. If making direct contributions do not appeal, please give a mention on the Newsletter talkpage and it will be incorporated!
Help is needed for the job of putting future Newsletters together. The present incumbent is finding it difficult to reflect the breadth of the Project, focusing on much the same individuals and articles each month, and has decided to beg for contributions from other individuals. Interested persons need only start working on next months issue to qualify. It really is that simple! If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy! Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 012 – April 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
| |
|
Complete To Do List
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log. | ||
- Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
delivered by ++Larbot - run by User:Lar - t/c 00:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
the The/the thing
Dude... I saw you move your name from active to inactive (you know where). I hope you'll reconsider because I think that project is greatly enhanced by your wit and work and wisdom. I think most other people feel the same way. the the/The thing just doesn't really matter in the scheme of things. There are a great bunch of guys working on the project and ... that naming thing, just doesn't matter.
But in any case you've done wonderful things and I hope, whether you stay or go, you have fun on the wiki, because that's what it really is all about, having fun. Thanks for your hard work. Cheers, mate. ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Inactive
If you are not active on the Beatles wikiproject, we have lost a clear voice of reason and our best hope for managing this debate via accepted process rather than on emotion. That's a big loss! I hope you are active again soon, and whether you are or not, thank you. When I started in January and saw discussion about the issue I almost bolted on the spot; when I saw you explain the process and guide it, I immediately changed my mind. — John Cardinal 19:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Fatal Microbes
I actually would prefer to remain anonymous at this stage (thanks for asking), since I am new and all.... I have registered on WP as Pete Fender as well, in case I want to post stuff that is attributable to me, later on. It is a strange feeling when others correct you on your own past and in some ways I have to agree with Ana da Silva's comment, though I also respect the fact that others may have a different perspective on certain events and developments...there is clearly room to be left for others. In particular there seem to be other parties interested on behalf of Honey Bane, in presenting her history in a particular light. I have no problem with that sort of thing, I think most artists would feel that way. In the case of Rubella Ballet and Omega Tribe, I cannot detect anyone else from the band taking an interest, so I have assumed the role of 'someone who was there', just to keep an eye on things. I shan't hesitate to ask if I feel I would like some help or advice, though. Cheers, Pete.--Punkeditor 14:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Pashtun article
Thanks for the observance and consideration, but I was actually just trying to revert the vandalism. Apparently, several instances of vandalism had survived quite a few generations of edits. I really have to question how that can happen in a featured article! Savant1984 00:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The Dirty Dozen
Wierd, man! They're all gone! Who am I going to talk to now? It's like at the end of one of those war films where all your friends are dead and you are just sort of stood there looking a bit distant. Or maybe Catch 22 - Hungry Joe, Nately, Dobbs and Kid Sampson are all dead, and I'm Yossarian or Hawkeye or something. You can choose between Dunbar - and be "dissapeared" - or Orr and be presumed dead and turn up alive at the end.--Crestville 13:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC) (No fun doing stupid names anymore)
- I dunno Markey Mark (who, upon closer inspection is actually younger by both of my parents, though onlyby 2 Months), I miss them! I'd never leave, but still, hen--Crestville 00:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, it was John Voight, not Slaphead Yul. Not that I've seen the film.--Crestville 13:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan
Suddenly a man arosed from behind the stones and became the president of Afghanistan with out any efforts and political back ground, certainly I am talking about Mr Karzai, will you reckoned such man as famous figure and lined him up with some historical people like Batcha Khan, who has a remarkable political career with full of sacrifices? Thanks. Haider 22:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- My pleasure! What I think is a bit different of your angle, this article is much valuable and having more importance to Pashtun people itself, as compare to non-pashtuns, because believe me, litrecy rate is very below among pashtuns, and being a pashutn, this is my liability to let the Pashtuns know about their glorious past at different forums, and this is one of it. As far as Language, Culture and Heritage concern, these have been highlighted very superbly in the article(nevertheless still lot to be rectified), Pashtuns and other readers would have enjoyed it. May be I am wrong but Hamid Karzai don't deserve any article even on him, while he is hanging on the main article page like would have got that president ship after 25 years of prison like the great Nelson Mandella, any famous dosn't mean for "hero", if I am not wrong, what are his credentials and struggle for any cause, which need to be mention? Take care. Haider 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hello again, What I am emphasizing is, Mr Karzai has nothing under his name, despite if he is holding such an important seat. If former President George Washington is not on front pages of the news now, it dosn't mean he is not famous, he has been living in the hearts of Americans for ages, while any current president couldn't take his place, even if he is hot in daily news, hero is far famous than famous. Sorry if it reflects some illogical example for you. Take care. Haider 21:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ofcourse Mr Karzai is famous, as far as current political news concern, but he is not famous amongst Pashtuns and the article is on Pashtuns so Pashtuns suggestions should be taken with some importance, they don't like him that's why he couldn't hold stability in his country. If he had some true sacrifices, political career or back ground then he would have been a hero for his people. I am not denying the criteria for the notable persons but here we have some different story like done nothing and treated as great!! Hope I am not waisting your time. Thanks. Haider 23:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's great if I am not! Certainly we are learning from each other agreed. Pashtun article is being read by both Pashtuns and non-Pashtuns, but what our duty is to put extra light on famous Pashtun heros first, who had some glorious past with full of passion and I will point them up as the forgotten heros, who now deserve full attention to reveal their efforts for their nation, and obviously that will be good for both pashtun and non-pashtun readers. May be Mr Karzai would be famous in the western world but this famous man is being hated by their own people and that's why stability in Afghanistan is very rear. Let us show the true famous people of Pashtuns in the Pashtun article, who really deserve their images like great Imran Khan, Younus Khan and Jahangir Khan in sports section and Batcha Khan, Faqir of Ipi and some others as Politicians. Batcha Khan's image should have affixed their first and then if we had some free space, Mr karzai could have been hanged there also. I am well understood your point of view but I have my own points, which need to be understood as well? Thanks. Haider 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ofcourse Mr Karzai is famous, as far as current political news concern, but he is not famous amongst Pashtuns and the article is on Pashtuns so Pashtuns suggestions should be taken with some importance, they don't like him that's why he couldn't hold stability in his country. If he had some true sacrifices, political career or back ground then he would have been a hero for his people. I am not denying the criteria for the notable persons but here we have some different story like done nothing and treated as great!! Hope I am not waisting your time. Thanks. Haider 23:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Same shit, different day
- Seems to be a relatively minor incursion. I'm sure they'll just get bored and go away eventually!Mammal4 11:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Uhh-err Missus
Uhh dear, someone's hot under the collar about absolutely fuck-all. I never said that you personally were included in "the smaller group of people", I only repeated what you had written about the bleeding policy. You can count your own good self out, because I'm already solid gone. If you think that a project where most members don't give a flying fuck if the articles are GA or not, don't have any books, don't know how to put citations in, and just want to put fancruft and POV in is worthwhile, then you have been deluding yourself - so don't give me shit. I only pointed the problems out, and now you want to shoot the messenger.
I only want you to ponder on the one question I have that is crucial: Why was I the only one to put articles up for a GA/FA in the last six months? Does anybody else give a shit? It doesn't seem to be the case, it is the case.
I will allow you to tell me to "grow up", because I wish that I was younger, but I think you will you regret writing that I only care about my so-called "precious pet articles". That is complete shite, and you know it. Now we've both had our rants, I can only say that I still love you, and I wish I had visitation rights for the cats.... andreasegde 14:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Mark, mate, that was pretty uncalled for. What I will say is, for the time being, YES we should follow wikipedia policy but, as it stands, wikipedia policy regarding the "t" is WRONG. Whilst I agree noone should be bitching to you about this, it should be adressed. Andrea, you and Vera have now all left and I havn't been involved in ages, so there's no need to be uncivil. LETS BE NICE MARKEY-MARK--Crestville 16:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's m'point wikidad, wikipolicy is final. It is wrong, but it is final. If we want to do something about it, it is not your ear we need to bend. So we can all be friends because we don't even work on the project anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crestville (talk • contribs) 17:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
Zimbabwe and Medieval cuisine
Yeah the Cold War didn't miss many areas. :) But yeah it was just an example. Maybe not the best one. But it's late here in the US and my brain isn't functioning well. :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- LOL! Yeah really! --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Subconscious music
Your edit to Subconscious music: I thought myspace links are normally to be avoided? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't have an opinion on myspace either way, I just went with policy. However, are you sure the label is notable enough for an article of its own? Maybe it should be merged into Steven Severin? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
re: Beatles
The IP of the account probably is the same, but reporting that violation probably wouldn't accomplish too much-the editor (207.255.163.207) seems to be experimenting (based on his edit history), and probably will give up as the page is protected. If he doesn't-well, that's another story. ErleGrey 20:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Kingboyk's protection was move protection-doesn't seem to be off. It wouldn't have made a difference anyway, because only an admin could remove protection. Thanks for asking, though. ErleGrey 22:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
the/The Beatles
Can I just check with you, where do you stand on that debate? Did you change the policy because you felt that the "small t" camp had consensus, or are you in that camp yourself?
The reason I ask is that I don't see sufficient consensus to modify our long standing policy, and the change has caused a great deal of damage to project morale. It was my intention to revert the changes until I saw that you, also a highly valued participant, was the editor who had changed it. Please advise. I shall probably revert nonetheless but may have to reconsider my wording. --kingboyk 15:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Blocking
Why? I'm not blocked am I? What's going on?--Crestville 21:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- What a wally brain. Is this because he was accusing someone of altering an artical to make it look favorable to try and get Brian Epstine into the Rock and Roll hall of fame? I thought he was joking about that! That's almost unstable!
- Gah, I'm the last one you want to prevent blockings. You know my track record.
- Wouldn't worry about you and him not being friends. He's a tempramental soul and will come 'round in time.--Crestville 21:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good God you're right! Yuck! I might go back to Mark Langford's page and laugh at his recent death again. That should get me blocked!--Crestville 21:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ha ha, check out Andrea's talk page. It's like hes been given solitary confinment and doing some serious thinking. Pretty funny, but also quite touching.--Crestville 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Mark, thanks for the message. I saw it yesterday morning and informed Steve but he said he was unable to do anything about it. Iv'e just seen his page an he seems in pretty good spirits now. Right, lets go an see what that little devil's been saying about Mark Langford!
- hope your'e well, cheers la, Vera, Chuck & Dave 02:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ha ha, check out Andrea's talk page. It's like hes been given solitary confinment and doing some serious thinking. Pretty funny, but also quite touching.--Crestville 00:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good God you're right! Yuck! I might go back to Mark Langford's page and laugh at his recent death again. That should get me blocked!--Crestville 21:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:The Beatles Newsletter
Next time you launch the newsletter, could you post up a statement of The Beatles quiz I created? The link is here. Thank you. Walt Disney
- copied to Newsletter talkpage. LessHeard vanU 12:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Congress in text
Which? State or National? LessHeard vanU 20:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. All the sources I used just said Congress, so I assume its on a national level. Don't forget inflation, $39,000 was worth alot more in 1854. --Digon3 14:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
PGY
I'm a US premedical student, so there's lots I likely don't know, but I would imagine that it is likely a North American thing; unsure as to its use in Canadian medical education (or even that of other countries), though. Probably a good thing to have in the article unless proven otherwise - thanks for the re-add! Exigence 17:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Invitation to rejoin WikiProject The Beatles
Dear esteemed editor and former member of WikiProject The Beatles,
Debate over "policy" recently overheated, to the detriment of the WikiProject and Wikipedia. As part of the fallout, you resigned from the Project.
I now believe, thanks in part to your input, that the WikiProject doesn't need "policy", so I have tagged the page as historical and blanked it. I would like to invite you to:
- Rejoin the project
- Edit and trim the project page and template mercilessly, to reflect a new focus of working to produce featured content on The Beatles (or "the Beatles", it's your choice)
- Help bring the next newsletter up to date and get it released.
It's your Project, please consider taking it back and shaping it into the Project you want it to be.
If it turns out that people aren't interested in rejoining and refocussing the Project I'm perfectly happy with that, and will resign myself and suggest tagging the Project as inactive. My role has always been primarily organisational, and if I don't have the support of good editors like yourself it's totally pointless carrying on. Lar and I started the Project because we felt one were needed, it is not and has never been a vanity exercise and we both have other things we could be doing.
PS: Mine's a London Pride. --kingboyk 12:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm here
Yes, I am watching. Less often than before, certainly, but I check in twice a day or so and I have most of the relevant pages on my watchlist. I'll go do some reading. John Cardinal 03:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your comments and the barnstar
I replied on my user talk as well, but I wanted to make sure you got my thanks. It does encourage me that some people are paying attention to the back and forth and maybe getting something out of it. I hope we run into each other again on this strange wiki world sometime. Take care and thank you, again. hombre de haha 05:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Dancing peanut butter jelly bean thingie
For absolutely no reason at all, I, Kingboyk, hereby award you with a Dancing peanut butter jelly bean thingie. Enjoy! --kingboyk 18:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
<its getting in the way of messages... pesky peanut!>
Universal Life Chruch & the Beatles
The citation is on the list itself. I will add to the articles. --GreenJoe 21:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Their wanting the ordination is irrelevant. Facts are facts, to not include it is POV. GreenJoe 21:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Lol! That's funnier than my jellybean. We can't every include every factoid about the people, we have to use editorial discretion. Lessheard's editorial discretion is that, because they didn't seek ordination, it's not worth putting into the article. I agree with him. You might also want to reread WP:NPOV because it's a very widely misunderstood policy. --kingboyk 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you read those template messages carefully. I wasn't adding an external link, I was citing a source. There is a big difference. University newspapers are just as good a source as any. They too have to check their facts. --GreenJoe 22:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any proof that they didn't willingly seek the ordination? GreenJoe 22:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have to prove they willingly sought it, since the ULC doesn't ordain anyone without their permission to my knowledge. GreenJoe 23:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- If there is a specific page for Beatles trivia, I wouldn't object to it being moved there. As for the exact date, I don't know what it is. I'm not sure HQ would tell me if I asked, and would probably be original research. However, User:CambridgeBayWeather didn't like them being in the ULC category, without the bit of trivia in the article and cited. So while I'm not opposed to the trivia itself moving, that page being in the category isn't very appropriate. GreenJoe 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am agreeable to that and removed it from your talk page. Is there an actual page on the trivia, or just a WikiProject? GreenJoe 23:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- If there is a specific page for Beatles trivia, I wouldn't object to it being moved there. As for the exact date, I don't know what it is. I'm not sure HQ would tell me if I asked, and would probably be original research. However, User:CambridgeBayWeather didn't like them being in the ULC category, without the bit of trivia in the article and cited. So while I'm not opposed to the trivia itself moving, that page being in the category isn't very appropriate. GreenJoe 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
My concern in all of this was not so much to do with it being included but that if it is, then it has a source. Now as to the inclusion I think it needs to be viewed in light of the notability. Look at Jerry Reinsdorf, who it appears performed a ceremony during a baseball game in Chicago. That appears to be notable. Now as to George Harrison, well if he preformed the marriage of Eric Clapton and Patti Boyd or he performed 100's of marragies then yes it should be included but if he never did anything then I'm not so sure it should be. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- If the ULC relationship is marginal then it sounds like a good idea to me. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if Joe has noticed or not, but the Beatles are very notable indeed. Quite famous, actually. So, if anything really important and notable happened in their lives, a quick Google search would throw up a better source than a uni newspaper. Indeed, it would throw up thousands of links, many to quality newspapers.
That said, this is just the kind of thing that can go in the miscellanea article. Well done you two on reaching a compromise! --kingboyk 11:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine. GreenJoe 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Richard Gere
As a person who has made comments on rumors related to Richard Gere on Jimbo Wales Talk, I thought you may be interested to know that due to the unwillingness of FNMF to find consensus on this issue I have taken the discsussion of the Gere/Crawford letter to the BLP noticeboard. [10]. Please feel free to comment. Sparkzilla 10:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment on the RG page. As the discussion progresses it seems the actual problem is with the inclusion of subjective terms such as "sensitivity" in the BLP policy itself. This allow some users to say that sensitivity trumps reliable sources/notability. I think this is wrong and am petitioning to change the policy so that it does not allow narrow subjective views to distort policy. If you can be bothered, then I hope you can comment. The section starts here [11] and continues in different forms to the end of the page. Sparkzilla 10:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I have made a new proposal for a change in the BLP policy to make sure that editors like FNMF cannot abuse the BLP policy to remove relevant and well-sourced material on grounds of "sensitivity". I appreciate your comments on my proposed changed to the policy. The latest proposal is at the bottom of this section: [12]. Thank you for your help. Sparkzilla 02:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo talk
No, I was seeing if anyone wanted to join in editing that page and certainly wasn not thinking of you in particular at all nor do I distrust your motives from what I see of your user page, SqueakBox 18:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
What's this?
[13] Why did you remove your edit? --kingboyk 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Exasperation. LessHeard vanU 23:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- At? --kingboyk 23:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC) PS I have a backlog on my talk page and of link disambiguations to do; I will reply tho! :)
- (edit conflict)Reading an earlier section on the page. (I have just wiped a whole raft of whinging self justification here regarding same.) If you think it important to have this discussion can we continue it when I am calmer? If you think the bass stuff is relevant then please re-add it to the discussion. LessHeard vanU 23:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC) (ha! one of those talkpage things is likely to raise a wry chuckle.)
- Not really important, no. I only moved it to the WP page because it's not about the article. I suppose it ought to be at Inage talk: really. Oh well... --kingboyk 23:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Reading an earlier section on the page. (I have just wiped a whole raft of whinging self justification here regarding same.) If you think it important to have this discussion can we continue it when I am calmer? If you think the bass stuff is relevant then please re-add it to the discussion. LessHeard vanU 23:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC) (ha! one of those talkpage things is likely to raise a wry chuckle.)
- At? --kingboyk 23:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC) PS I have a backlog on my talk page and of link disambiguations to do; I will reply tho! :)
Across the Universe on film
- Across the Universe (film) / edgarde 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Stick it back in the article, and please add a reference. I apologise for not checking the wikilink in the first place. LessHeard vanU 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I left a note with the original contributor to seeing if they want to add it to a different page. The Beatles is long enough without tangential items being appended. / edgarde 21:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Still my bad, though. I checked the editors contrib history (it was the only one) and then googled for it, what I didn't do was check the link and assume good faith. LessHeard vanU 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Happens to us all. Checking Google and then removing was reasonable. You're doing good work. / edgarde 21:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Replied
...at User_talk:Kingboyk#.22Demn_You.2C_Sir.2C_for_a_Varlet.21.22. Sorry about the delay. --kingboyk 18:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Talk pages
Tell you what, I've been away for a week or so, and look what you bloody kids have done! Messing up my lovely talk page with yer muddy shoes and beer cans everywhere! It's like one of them myspace parties I don't read about in my sophisticated broadsheet newpapers.--Crestville 16:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Response
Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll go with Ollie's, just to be safe, so I removed all of the non-free images —Jøε Jαкяð
You're a sysop
I'm promoted you as a sysop, this required a bureaucrat discretion as it fell in the grey area. Reasons can be found on that RFA talk page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations Mark! Best of luck with the mop. :-) —Anas talk? 10:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations from me too. Please contact User:Lar to arrange payment of your cartel membership fee :) --kingboyk 10:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations. Let me add that I hope you're going to [[disappoint|disprove]] the opposition and prove those right who placed their faith in you. Personally, I never planned on becoming an admin anyway ;-) All the best, —AldeBaer 10:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations!!! I hope you can help with fixing the Let It Be... Naked article as a fellow sysop blocked it because of the inclusion of copyrighted material. Steelbeard1 12:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I will pile on and add my congratulations! John Cardinal 17:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations - well-deserved. (Do I have to doff my cap in passing? :) egde 18:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Congrats... I'm sure you'll wield the mop wisely.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 07:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks... Er, what happens now?
I would like to thank everyone who participated in my RfA for one of the most intense and surreal experiences I have had in cyberspace. I humbly recognise that being an admin is no big deal but I had no idea how big a deal getting it is.
What has been made clear is the amount I still have to learn about this place. I should be grateful for any help and advice that anyone is prepared to give.LessHeard vanU 11:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Now get on and use the tools! :) I've created a nonsense page at User_talk:LessHeard_vanU/hfhd and I hereby request deletion of it. Find the button and zap it, please :) Cheers. --kingboyk 22:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
A real admin job for you if you're about
This one will take a few minutes, and I have to go out. No sweat if you can't do it or aren't here, I'll attend to it later.
User_talk:Kingboyk#Let_It_Be..._Naked_article_in_trouble
Article listed as a copyvio. Steelbeard has identified the last problem-free edit on my talk page. Basically, article needs to be deleted as a copyvio, and then all edits up to the last good version restored. It also needs to be removed from the copyvio page or clearly marked as dealt with by an admin, so that nobody else comes along and deletes it. Don't be embarressed to say it's too difficult, but if you can do it you help save a Beatles article :) --kingboyk 15:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Billy227
Care for another admin job? User:Billy227 is using AWB to make edits, and doing so at almost BOT-like speeds in some cases. Unfortunately, at least one of his "personal beliefs" is that articles should have only one internal link regardless of where a term appears in the article. So, for example, if George Martin is linked via an Infobox, then Billy227 will remove any wikilinks to George Martin in the article. Similarly, for an album article, if a song is mentioned in the text, Billy227 removes the wikilink from any subsequent track listing. In my opinion, he is acting in good faith but he is not using any judgement about the links and thus he is not following the guidelines in WP:MoS. When I reviewed his contributions last night, it was clear that at one point yesterday he was rapidly editing articles in alphabetical sequence. Two Beatle editors have now objected to his edits: I left a message on Billy227's talk page and so did another editor. His reply to me left little room for discussion, so I did not pursue it further.
Can you take a look at his edits and determine if an Admin action is appropriate? I am not suggesting a block or anything like that, but it may take someone with authority to get him to stop using AWB for edits that do not comply with MoS. If I should report this elsewhere, please let me know. You can reply here; I'll watch for it. Thanks! – John Cardinal 10:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed his AWB access. He can reapply when he agrees not to use the tool for controversial or trivial edits. --kingboyk 11:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- I assume you have noted Kingboyk's actions (thanks, Steve)? While I am able to use the tools as yet I would prefer more experienced sysops to make the controversial decisions while I get the feel of the role. Thanks for the request. Next time I may be able to help better. LessHeard vanU 12:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks to you both. I have asked kingboyk for help in the past, but I know he has a lot on his plate so I figured I'd spread the requests around! <g> I was also unaware of kingboyk's role with AWB until after I left the entry above for LessHeard vanU. In general, I am ignorant of the subtleties of administrator actions, so if I ask for something that you'd prefer not to do, let me know. Actually, if I become a PITA for any reason, please let me know! — John Cardinal 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- A couple of people I respect, and Steve, suggest that I had best get used to the simple stuff before embarking on major changes using the tools. Sage advice. But don't stop asking, as I will need to do the proper mopping at some time. LessHeard vanU 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- "A couple of people I respect, and Steve". Bah! Waited to get that in until after your RFA, huh?
- John: As my user page says, I am a jack of all trades, and master of none. I'm the fellow that introduces new bugs into AWB to give the other devs something to do ;) --kingboyk 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- A couple of people I respect, and Steve, suggest that I had best get used to the simple stuff before embarking on major changes using the tools. Sage advice. But don't stop asking, as I will need to do the proper mopping at some time. LessHeard vanU 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks to you both. I have asked kingboyk for help in the past, but I know he has a lot on his plate so I figured I'd spread the requests around! <g> I was also unaware of kingboyk's role with AWB until after I left the entry above for LessHeard vanU. In general, I am ignorant of the subtleties of administrator actions, so if I ask for something that you'd prefer not to do, let me know. Actually, if I become a PITA for any reason, please let me know! — John Cardinal 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a response, but a promise of a response
Hi, LessHeard vanU. Apologies for my late response. I read your message(s) several days ago, but had made my password so secure that I couldn't remember it, and was not at my usual computer. I didn't want to reset the password. I've also been very busy lately.
I appreciate your message of reconciliation, and am glad that you don't seem to be angry at my opposition of your adminship. I will respond later, but am going into work in a moment. Regards, Musical Linguist 11:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
BLP
I read your recent comments on the BLP talk page and admin noticeboard about whether WP:BLP applies to the deceased, and was encouraged. As you are aware, I hold strongly to the belief that tabloid material must be excluded, and to the belief that BLP entries must be edited sensitively and with an awareness of the WP:BLP rationale (BLP entries affect people's lives...and even celebrities count as people!). I have the feeling that the Wikipedia community is very gradually heading toward an acceptance of these necessities (naturally inducing its own resistance along the way). But I am glad to see that my opposition to you on a previous matter, and my opposition to your request for adminship, have not caused you to reflect on these matters with bias or malice. Good luck with your administration. FNMF 00:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thanks. My position hasn't changed insofar that I believe notable events properly sourced and referenced should be included in biographical articles, and my interpretation of notable and a reliable source may differ from other editors, but the issue of sensitivity regarding subjects should necessarily extend to the immediate period after death. LessHeard vanU 12:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
I really appreciate your support regarding my usurpation request on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. I also appreciate your suggestions that may lead to an usurpation policy that is a little more 'user friendly'. EleosPrime 01:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Back
Yeh looks like Im back Reedgunner 08:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Hi Mark. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
See!? I can participate in non-controversial aspects of WP! Truthfully, a bit of a no brainer. I have every confidence in your use of the tools. Congrats. LessHeard vanU 22:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Ack! Sorry... I have no idea what happened. I certainly didn't intend to revert you, and didn't realize I had until the edit appeared on my watchlist. Sorry again; I have reverted myself. Cheers, -- Visviva 10:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I struck out my first comment. Please remove if you wish (and I will do the same here), LessHeard vanU 10:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Just curious... is the Gracenotes RfA talk page supposed to be protected? 'Cause it isn't at the moment (and neither is the main page). Not really sure why it would be, though. -- Visviva 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Changing other people's posts
As an admin, you should know better than to do this. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do now. LessHeard vanU 21:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
RfA
Mark, please don't ask people why they are opposing. There has been too much of it already. It's time to just allow people to comment and move on. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- They commented they had their own misgivings. If there is something other than the reasons already given then they prove useful to the debate. If there is nothing new, then indeed there is little reason to pursue the matter. LessHeard vanU 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for note, which is much appreciated. I never object to being hit with olive branches. :-) It's fine for people to disagree from time to time; in fact, it's healthy. I know we're all in it (well, most of us, and definitely you) for the good of Wikipedia one way or another. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about my mistake. The page was a bit unwiedly and so I stumbled. And thanks for telling me. Str1977 (smile back) 21:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Problem in The Beatles discography
User talk:ESkog has deleted the album covers in The Beatles discography. If you look at his talk page, other editors have complained about the removal of album covers of other discography articles. Is there any way you can help in getting the album covers back in the discography articles? You can reply in the talk pages you feel to be most appropriate in getting the discussion going. Steelbeard1 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Your call
Less, I think the bureaucrats would have taken the final figures when the RfA closed, though I also think they won't judge by figures alone. However, if you want to protect, that's fine with me. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You were right to be suspcious; it's verbatim from here. 86.140.181.239 15:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting in touch. There are issues here that need to be addressed. User:Infoart has created many articles. All the ones I have seen are of artists exhibited/promoted by the Saatchi Gallery, i.e. in Charles Saatchi's collection. The articles in their initial form were cut and paste copyvios from the Saatchi Gallery web site. Infoart explained that it was his copyright as he was the original author and therefore the text could be used. This is an admission of WP:COI.
The text used is not suitable for wikipedia. It is curatorial interpretation of the artist's work, to be polite. Some of it could be quoted with a reference to show the Saatchi Gallery's view of such work, but only as a quote. Some of the text has been changed by other editors. However, when I last looked (which was a while ago) much text still needed a lot of attention. Christoph Ruckhaberle is a case in point, but has been properly pruned by User:86.140.181.239 to factual matter.
Re. notability, the irony is that if an artist is on the Saatchi site it effectively gives them notability per se, especially as the artist is almost certain to have other CV achievements also. You can see the power of the Saatchi site. It has an Alexa rank in US near 3,000 and in UK near 5,000,[14], surpassing both the Tate and MoMA (Museum of Modern Art, NY), for example.[15]
The articles could all technically be speedy deleted as G11, blatant advertising requiring rewrite. The reason I didn't pursue this case more rigorously at the time was that I consider on balance it is more to wiki's benefit to have these article than not to have them. It adds usefully to the contemporary art data, of which there is a woeful lack compared to other subject areas (last year 3 of the 4 Turner Prize nominees lacked article till I added them, and this year 2 did). I also had a lack of time, and even more of one now, I'm afraid. The reply to my email, which took some time coming, was an invitation to discuss on the talk page.
My suggestion is that they are ruthlessly pruned, with a short quote left, as a quote, from the copyvio text, attributed to the gallery. However, Infoart definitely needs to be taken in hand, and educated to either write proper articles or else be blocked for persisting in the current mode.
You might want to notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts to get some assistance. Also editors who have been effective in the contemporary art field are Bus stop, Freshacconci and Johnbod.
I hope this helps. Get back to me if you need to.
Tyrenius 04:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Infoart and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Infoart articles. Tyrenius 14:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Comment from /LessHeard vanU
(refactored)
- See Support vote 91 and Q.9 (and my comment at Gracenotes talkpage re Q.9) at Gracenotes RfA. I will not argue with you, since I agree with most of your points, and therefore reluctantly shall withdraw from this discussion. You do whatever you feel appropriate, but please leave me out of your sense of outrage and disappointment. Thank you. LessHeard vanU 16:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
(refactored)(note; I originally said vote 90 when I meant 91 i.e. mine.)
Optional Question
Wow, a matter of seconds between our two questions. Yeah, I'll renumber mine. Thanks for pointing that out. GoodnightmushTalk 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 00:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I renumbered mine, but I think its best to keep all optional Qs together and separate from his statement so i moved yours down with mine and another editors, hope you don't mind. GoodnightmushTalk 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 00:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see the tag. The last post was pretty recent so I just assumed.--Shadowdrak 20:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay
Hello LessHeard vanU, To me mentioning that I am on the verge of being blocked is a major threaten and should not be taken lightly, people pick and chose who to block and sometimes for confusing or no reason I do not even want to be near that block of execution. And I believe with all that has happened these past 5 days that I have moderated my language to some great extent with all that has been thrown at me.
But if you could help clear up confusion in two problems:
Tangeline is up for deletion and I do not know why.
Coral Smith - there is a user who keeps spamming and reverting my edits under no bias.
Thanks--Migospia †♥ 09:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted articles to user space
Undelete all versions of the the article, move it to a user subpage, delink any categories in the article. Delete the redirect that has been created where the original article was, to avoid cross name space redirects. Let me know if there's any hiccups. Tyrenius 14:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Everybody Hates Chris
I've responded to you about the issue on the article EverybodyHatesChris 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- No problem - you did more than I did anyway - I just said I agreed with you XD. The whole thing strikes me as weird though. The dispute seems like a fairly minor deal though - I'm surpirsed that the editors couldn't work it out themselves. <sigh>, craziness. --danielfolsom 21:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I wrote this to you on Coral Smith talk page:
No! LessHeard, you have yet to give me an answer to my question. You need to answer me, LessHeard. Read this from her source and explain to me how this supports her contention. You haven't been able to explain that to me, LessHeard. It doesn't really matter what Daniel or anyone else thinks, LessHeard. You need to go by the facts. Here's the fact in this article:
I feel like he was able to open up to me. And when Abram and I opened up to each other, it was a beautiful, beautiful friendship that I've never experienced before, ever.
You tell me LessHeard, how that supports her contention that the two of them had a gf/bf relationship. I've already written this down once. This is twice I've had to write it down for you. That's not good. EverybodyHatesChris 02:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You Wrote: That's just it LessHeard. This is why I had to be so tough with you, LessHeard. You still think she could have used what she had as a source: The irony is that had you agreed, as I originally suggested, that both your and Migospia's references be included that your preferred version would have been of an equal footing. She couldn't use that as a source at all and that's why I made sure they got rid of it LessHeard, and you didn't understand that. If there's going to be a contention, there has to be a source to support it or else it doesn't do anything. You wanted to put both of the sources in LessHeard, and I couldn't allow that because that source did not support her contention and you also wouldn't answer my question, LessHeard. I needed to be tough because no matter how many times I said it, it wasn't getting through to you, LessHeard, because it still hasn't. I wasn't there to get rid of her information, I was there to make sure she had a source that supported it. I was teaching her that the source has to support her contention and that needed to be done, Lessheard. EverybodyHatesChris 22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
you've been reported
LessHeard, I've just e-mailed the warning you gave me to wikipedia. I didn't think it was fair at all and I'm going to complain about it and ask them if I can erase it from my page because it doesn't belong there. You wouldn't even address the issue up above before you stuck me with a warning. I don't have to tolerate that, LessHeard EverybodyHatesChris 12:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
EverybodyHatesChris
EverybodyHatesChris reverted Danielfolsom edits to Coral Smith, so I come to you for help?--Migospia †♥ 03:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ok sounds good - thanks for the heads up. I think things had gotten a bit too heated, so I'm considering just backing out. It's not like I'm leaving some heated debate- the debate was over, it just got weird afterwards, but I'll be glad to give you the heads up. Thanks again, --danielfolsom 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mark hope your'e well. User:204.126.64.254 keeps on putting that It's a piccy of Pattie Boyd and not Astrid on the page. I've revered twice and told him that it is Astrid. I've now put a test 4 on his page. will you have a word please? Cheers pal. Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Mark. They seem to have given up after the Test 4. But I would be greatful if you would still keep an eye on em - I mean, a blind man on a galloping horse would notice the gap in Pattie's teeth! Btw, Congratulations, If I'd known, Ida voted for yer! Cheers Pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry pal, I get confused with Scottish icons meself - speshley King Billy an the rest of them Ranger's players! Cheers Mark! Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
My recognition
|
Recognition | |
| While browsing the discussion at ElinorD's RfA, i noticed your comment and just decided to award you this particular barnstar. Very well-deserved. I used my William Wallace's pic as i couldn' find an appropriate barnstar for in a recognition for your action. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you. I honestly do not understand what message, if any, that this figure might be attempting to convey, but I thank you for the thought... ;~) LessHeard vanU 19:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hehehehe. It was just a random pic of mine as i couldn't find an approp barnstar for your pacific stance. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Notability
You recently edited an article for Dekker Dreyer... the article is up for deletion based on notability, and I would like to ask you to chime in on the discussion of that deletion. Wikimegamaster 22:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: Lisa Ann Diaz
Hi, thanks for the message! I declined {{db-attack}} because it's true. A {{prod}} tag is okay, but I'd rather wait for a few days to see if the article's creator comes back to improve it. Thanks again – KrakatoaKatie 13:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
well
I remove it cause been there for couple of days and i know i didn't do no personal attack. [16] look what he said there, I don't have the time going back and forth on personal attack, but that wasn't the first, and i wasn't the only one. Now to my point that what that user do, try get people block so he can spread propaganda, and I understand most people don't know what going on, but why do admis take he side all the time, yes the language I use might be right, but look the language s/he uses. s/he accuses other people having different account but s/he got 3 that i know off. so tell me how Dominican Article neutral when it spread propaganda, get sources that clearly bias, use words that not even in the source and so on...i apologies for what have happen but hey my country they talking about lies as facts. AvFnx 14:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Responded
Maybe you can help me out I responded to what you said on 3RR--Migospia†♥ 00:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Responded, Rocket is saying I violated something and I am saying how?--Migospia†♥ 00:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sort it out with Rocket. He is a good'un, you are a good'un. (hint) Pretend you are Rocket, trying to help a friend, and see how he sees things... LessHeard vanU 00:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Well if you look at Rockets last comments on the page it seems almost impossible to try and sort things out with him, and now he is saying the word newbie is bad and like the n word, daniel said it but rocket has not denied it. But I am saying since you are an admin as well and also you were telling me about 3rr like I did not know, so that is why I was asking you--Migospia†♥ 00:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'll take a look when I get up later today... LessHeard vanU 01:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay thanks--Migospia†♥ 01:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Also whenever you wake up danielfolsom now hates me for some reason and there seems to be a HUGE misunderstanding--Migospia†♥ 05:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh my gosh did you read all that was said on my talk page? And for what? Sick pleasure?--Migospia†♥ 20:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
(refactored)
(refactored)
(refactored)
Migospia
Hello LessHeard vanU. Thanks for your voice of reason on Migospia's talkpage. As you have probably gathered, my patience is wearing thin. So, for her own good, i'm planning to simply shun Migospia for a while. I'm going to counsel Daniel to do likewise, as I don't think their interaction is proving constructive for either of them.
I note that, because you didn't concur with her interpretation of our interactions, you are no longer quite in as much favour as you were previously. This leaves me wondering how anyone is going to be able to guide Migospia without being accused of hatemongering or making attacks. Since she has a penchance for editing controversial articles on which she has a strong POV, I feel its only a matter of time until this happens again. While I really don't want to get involved with her again, I don't believe its appropriate to give her a pass simply because the alternative turns into high drama. Your thoughts on how to proceed in future would be most welcome, because I'm at the point now where I'm thinking a short block is preferable to a repeat of the circus that happened yesterday. Rockpocket 21:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, on further investigation, it appears it was EHC, not Migospia, that was unhappy with you. Sorry about that (it is difficult to track who says what when they intersperse their comments, and quote others so regularly). So maybe you will be able to guide her better, though reading the reply below... good luck with that. I have supported your comments at AN/I also, its better this is dealt with now. Rockpocket 01:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Stop trying to turn people aganist me and hurt me and feeding all these lies to lessheard. Example to lessheardvan of what rocket has said about ME:
- how anyone is going to be able to guide Migospia without being accused of hatemongering or making attacks
When have I accused you have making attack recently, I haven't nor have I done that with lessheard or slimvirgin, becasuse they have not.
- Since she has a penchance for editing controversial articles on which she has a strong POV
Lol actually no I don't and don't you dare say such a thing, when and if I edit a talk about the edit most of the time before like I did with you on Veganism
- I feel its only a matter of time until this happens again
You see that is what I fear too if you keep baiting Daniel and now trying to turn lessheard aganist me of course it would happean but if you stop biating othes and if you accuse me of something show me proof I mean it is that simple but talking about me like this behind my back is not going to help anything
- simply because the alternative turns into high drama
So when someone bullys me and I defend myself and when people accuse me with no proof and bait others and I defend myself all of a sudden its fucking drama?
- I'm thinking a short block is preferable to a repeat
Look threanting to block me after I have been bullied and hate and that is a way to get me fucking raging!
LessHeard vanU0 From what it seems and I have proven Rockpocket creates things aganist me and always wants to block me it seems best that he avoids me but also avoids making horrible threats aganist me as well as stop talking about me like this behind my back it is uncalled for and sick, Daniel use to be nice and clear to me, and from reading what he did to me yesterday it is clear where he gets it from. LessHeard please don't change because you still are nice and would hate to loose another person to rockpocket --Migospia†♥ 22:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages
I sent you an e-mail about a question on repairing links to disambiguation pages
- Sorry, I haven't checked my mail. I prefer to do my Wiki stuff in the open, unless it is really sensitive. Being open is what I am about (I hope - anyone reading this and disagreeing ought to send me an email!;~))LessHeard vanU 12:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also with Daniel just tell him that he should not do those things they hurt people and one day he may hurt someone weaker than me and things happen, but also tell him that he was mistaken about me and I did not call you a liar, or use the word n00b (which he thinks is up there with nigger), and I did nothing with the vegan pov hopefully that woud sort things out and we can spread WikiLove
! And maybe not to get into conversations like trolls do and start a big mess that hurts people and last hours when we could have be editing articles and help with Wikipeida. Also if Rocket could stop talking about me to other people and keep wanting to block me for no reason, I tried to get this through yesterday but no one would listen! Instead hate! Hopefully if this is said I can get over the exerpience I had yesterday, and peace. Oh I hope what rocket said did not affect the way you feel about me--Migospia†♥ 23:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Danielfolsom is a good editor, and rockpocket appears to be a very good admin. I think if we all stepped back a bit and just did some quiet non-controversial editing (I go off and do a bit of Spelling and Grammer checking on Random articles) then we will all feel the benefit. Also, FYI, I am on UK time and have family commitments so I may not always respond immediately to your requests (this is my lunchbreak). I see rockpocket has helped you with the disambig request. LessHeard vanU 12:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes rockpocket helped me. And just saying that would help clear things up in the future really has nothing to do with editing controversial articles lol, just what I stated above simple to avoid and so far has been done. Hopefully will continue!--Migospia†♥ 13:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Avfnx
sometime i forget log in so i write a post only to realize that I didn't log in, so i go and log in and sign it w/ my user name. Im not try have 2 accounts, and but i be more careful from now one. After my block I been more active taking thing to the talk page, which I did try. I like thank you for you time; but I know they going find a way to block me. Before I got involve there were vandalism claim that the Trinitario (was a secret organization, that free Dominican Republic) inspire the creation of the KKK. The no basis for that, even the higher rank leader was black himself. My point trying get at is that i been trying clean the article up, make more neutral...I guess i been getting people way. I lose my cool sometime but is that i really do care. The Juan Pablo Duarte that article needs lot of work but i was rvt vandalism (calling founding founder of DR racist) I know as the article stand is to one side it. But i been try get English cited source about he's life so i can clean that article, it taking longer then i thought. If the cited source not in English people use that to say no good and erase it. Once again thank for your time, and i try not to slip so i don't end up getting blocked, I see people are look for that AvFnx 15:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
My revert and attempted restoration of your edit
Hi, LessHeard vanU. I had decided not to go round to all the talk pages of people who supported my RfA and drop boilerplate thank yous on them — not because it's too much trouble to express my appreciation, but because I have seen a few examples of people being irritated by it, and I have no way of knowing who would and who wouldn't find it annoying. So I thought I'd just thank people any time I happened to be at their talk pages for some other reason. I'm at your talk page now, so, even though my RfA is not closed yet — thank you for your support. I especially appreciate it from someone who disagrees with me about some issues.
Anyway, why am I at your talk page? Because the edit that you made here for some reason duplicated whole sections of the page. I reverted you here, and then, in my next post, tried to add what I think you had added. However, I had no way of knowing if the post I found was the only new material you had intentionally added to the page. Perhaps you could take a look and re-add anything I missed? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- As I was getting ready to save, the orange bar lit up, as you had just posted on my page. ElinorD (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yup. Thanks again. LessHeard vanU 21:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- It was a simple copy and paste from the AIV. Which I did before. They suggested that I go to ANI for another case [17] . I don't really care about other people's complaints about him. I care about him changing people's conversations. So is changing someone's conversation on a talk page considered to be ok?BoriquaStar 21:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- Last question first, no it is not okay to change someones comments on a talkpage. From what I see Avfnx apologised for his actions and, although I do not have a view whether his earlier actions were deliberate or a mistake, unless there are very good reasons not to(which would require supporting diffs) editors should assume good faith. I would direct you to User:Moeron's comment at WP:ANI that any repetition would be a reason for suspicion.
- As commented, I am familiar with the recent history of Avfnx's contributions and some concerns raised about him. Some complaints appear to have been motivated by reasons other than those which should concern WP. I made these remarks so you should be aware that any future claims regarding the editors contributions (which can, and have been, in violation of policies, etc.) are both properly founded and have not been resolved between the two parties concerned. Basically, if the guy says "sorry" then there is nothing that can be done unless the incidents recur. Then, and discussion between the sides has not resolved the matter, the incident(s) should be bought to the notice of admins. LessHeard vanU 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Well basically this is what happened. There was an unsigned comment. I signed it for the user with the unsign tag [18] [19] [20]. He then created spaces which I saw here [21] and said i signed it. Anyway, that's it. I'm not going to be bothered with it. BoriquaStar 22:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you check something for me?
The sound sample Image:Adayinthelifesample.ogg was deleted recently. All I can tell so far is that the deletor said the sampe was too long. I looked at a bunch of Beatle-related samples a few months ago and I didn't find any that were either longer than 30 secs or more than 10%.. I may have missed A Day in the Life. Anyway, can you look into it and see if the samplewas actually too long? John Cardinal 02:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Where do I request clarification? Do I just contact the deletor, or ? John Cardinal 17:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Edit warring on Kurdistan Workers Party and User:Qwl
First, I would apologise again for not realising that the edit summary comments were a personal attack. If I had realised I would have blocked the editor for that violation, as well as the 3RR. I did not issue a block in this instance because, although 3RR was violated, User:Qwl was not continuing the revert war and the article had been "cleaned" of their edits. As blocking is preventative rather than punitive I saw no point in blocking an editor who was no longer making those edits, so I decided to issue a warning instead. I hope this explains my actions and non-actions. LessHeard vanU 19:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh its fine. There is nothing to apologies about. If the disruption stops - I am cool with that. :) -- Cat chi? 21:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Neutral Point of View - NPOV. this is a threat and propanda. wikipedia refuse it.--Qwl 19:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I will use that rule. i will write many news have good sources like that example.wait.. you dont have neutral view.--Qwl 00:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Infoart new section
Yes... It was a fairly new user who reverted you, and I doubt if it's happened elsewhere. Still, worth checking. I wonder if people would like to check and watchlist the articles they've cleaned up? Tyrenius 23:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK. Maybe bold the name, when it has been checked and watchlisted? Tyrenius 23:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
What?
So let me get this straight, you wanted to get rid of that information on David Thorpe (artist) because it wasn't cited or was it vandalism? But if you didn't want it there why didn't you just revert my revert and not just leave it? please get back to me on it. "I don't care what you think" 02:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Help
Are you on? I could sure use some help--Migospia†♥ 02:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't get your response, I said at rock-
Can you keep a close eye and review Hayley Westenra.[23]. I added a category, got reverted once talked on the user's talk page, waited 5 hours and talked on Hayley Westenra's talk page's saying I will revert as I did. The user got back with me on the talk page 7 hours later with one source for my 4, so I said like what happened with Coral Smith if you have two or more sources differing each-other in a way include both, so I included both in my last edit, but if the user has any objections or reverts can you check this out?--Migospia†♥ 23:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
And you said: 'Please try talking to Andrew D White. Resolve your differences civilly and try to get a wording that satisfies the both of you. Reverting is not an editorial tool.'
How does that help me fom what I said above?--Migospia†♥ 09:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I came here to get him too. It looks like, from his edit history, that he generally goes to bed 2-3 hours ago. Lsi john 03:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, but I'm honored that you thought I was. :) Peace. Lsi john 22:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikimedia Board Election
I have copied this from the shy Kingboyk's page. andreasegde 19:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
"I'm planning to run in the Wikimedia Board Election. If you have any issues which you feel the Foundation need to address, or if you would be willing to endorse my candidature, please email me". --kingboyk 15:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
"To endorse me. I need 15, only have 2 so far, so u have a chance to be #3" :) : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Endorsements/Submission#Kingboyk
Vote for The Fifth Beatle
The_Fifth_Beatle You have to start an account though... andreasegde 19:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've put a proper link to this page on your Meta-Wiki page, because they struck out your vote - "No link from local". (Kingboyk did it for me, so I am passing the favour on.) --andreasegde 09:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
RE your post on Migospia's page
LessHeard vanU, wasn't it ExcellentEditor that was marked as the sock puppet? At least thats what his talk page says. WikiTweak's page seems to be entact. Lsi john 22:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused now, more so. Mama's Family was going through an edit war history and it appears at least two of the accounts were blocked as EHC socks. But the edits they made were counter to each other. Are any of the other editors that were involved in the edit war also socks of his? Lsi john 22:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- re the message on Migospia's page, I have replied on yours. I am not familiar with the case, but it isn't unknown to have socks argue with each other either for trolling purposes or to construct a strawman argument scenario where one "side" concedes the argument and seemingly closes the debate (in the puppetmasters preferred version). As I said, I have not followed this and only noted a comment I found in passing. LessHeard vanU 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- I saw this and remembered the name, and Migospia having some trouble with same over an article where I had first encountered her. LessHeard vanU 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, that explains what I was seeing. And, your report to Mig. was incorrect. WikiTweak was the only one of the group 'not' blocked, it seems. Lsi john 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I will edit my comment there. LessHeard vanU 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Um, I don't think WikiTweat was ever confirmed as a sock. And, based on the blocks, two of the socks did argue with each other. I don't know what the game was, but it confused me when I was watching it. But that's because I can't see IPs. ;) .. so, regarding your post to Mig.. WikiTweat has not been confirmed as a sock (to my knowledge). Lsi john 23:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Did you check my link? Same IP range for WikiTweak, EHC and some others (who were edit warring with each other) and had much the same interests... LessHeard vanU 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I read it. You might want to go read it again. ;) Lsi john 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Did you check my link? Same IP range for WikiTweak, EHC and some others (who were edit warring with each other) and had much the same interests... LessHeard vanU 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Um, I don't think WikiTweat was ever confirmed as a sock. And, based on the blocks, two of the socks did argue with each other. I don't know what the game was, but it confused me when I was watching it. But that's because I can't see IPs. ;) .. so, regarding your post to Mig.. WikiTweat has not been confirmed as a sock (to my knowledge). Lsi john 23:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I will edit my comment there. LessHeard vanU 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
We are now verifying m:User:LessHeard vanU's endorsement. However this endorsement doesn't two of requirements,
- On meta user page, a link to the project under which the user meet the eligibility criteria
- Even we accept the writing pointer instead, your user page has no link to meta user page
Unless those requirements are filled, the endorsement submitted by that user will be disqualified due to lack of proof for eligibility. Thank you for your attention, --Aphaia 06:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads up
User:Pigsonthewing continued to editwar, and moved the "Warning" that he had violated 3rr on his user page, to his talk page. I extended his block to 72 hours and protected the talk page for that duration, hopefully he comes back and doesn't edit disruptively any further. SirFozzie 15:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| Thanks for your work on the InfoArt cleanup project. Tyrenius 21:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC) |
And thanks...
...for all the fish. I'm just glad everyone rallied round; and you were most able in the task. Tyrenius 22:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright Mark? Have you ever heard that Collins' father was once The Beatles Road Manager - I've not! Cheers Pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Archiving
The archive box on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts was on some sort of automatic archiving and I couldn't figure out how to do what I wanted, so I've converted it to manual operation, which is a lot easier to comprehend, even if not quite so snazzy. I've kept the Infoart articles page where it is, and just put a note at the top that it's now an archive, then linked to it from the archive box on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. That way it is preserved as a discrete entity. There's a bit more explanation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Archiving_.2FInfoart_articles.
I'm not sure if Infoart articles should actually have been a subpage of the main project page to start with, instead of a subpage of the talk page, but it's done the job now anyway.
Tyrenius 00:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is the problem with helpful "explanations" on wikipedia processes. I'm sure they are faultless, just incomprehensible. I'm no expert, but feel free to try me... Tyrenius 01:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Dopey and Boil
LOL! Sloppy seconds! (Errgh!) Yeah, I'll have roadie Mark maybe! Thanks for that, I don't even know why I clicked on his article, must have been some reason but I can't remember now! Oh aye, he's a real Head the Ball that one! He even pulled a loaded 9mm on a Woman in the West End once, an got away with it, God knows how! I tried shearching for the incident but there's no trace anywhere (that would look good in his article eh?) I've stuck me oar in about the Fabs (leaving a lot in reserve, should it be needed). Cheers Mark, Tony
Tony Sidaway
Please don't use boilerplate warnings on experienced editors, it's sloppy, arrogant and does nothing but promote ill-feeling. Thanks. Nick 20:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- If experienced editors act like new contributors and continue to violate WP:FORUM, despite friendly low key warnings, and do not comment when such warnings are altered like this, then they will get boilerplate warnings. LessHeard vanU 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, if you check the discussion that has been removed [24] [25], you'll find that it's all on topic. The question is who the Tocaflane could me, and this has a bearing on how we write about them in the article. The events in the recently passed article need to be collated and properly described. It's all a bit lighthearted because, frankly, the answers aren't available in a lot of cases, so we like to fill in the gaps in our explanations with speculation. All of the Doctor Who project people have happily put a lot of work into the articles and quality is improving, but we cannot maintain that improvement in the face of editors who try to bully us into stopping those necessary discussions.
- You refer to my editing Rambutan's comment. This was to fix the unsightly formatting he used. Talk pages quickly become very difficult to use if editors insist on using unorthodox formatting.
- Now please don't issue any more frankly ridiculous, counter-productive warnings like that, please try not to interfere in the work carried on in the Doctor Who project, which is widely recognised as one of the best fictional projects we have on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, therefore discussion of what or who the little balls may contain is irrelevant. I also do not see what use the fact that you find the character/actress performing the role of Mrs Saxon as "quite a hottie" as helping the article. I cannot see the point in speculating because, and I am surprised you seem unaware, you will need to source a third party reference to describe the Tocaflane when you come to add to the article.
- The diff I provided regarding the altering of editors comment was when the anon editor removed the {{talkheader}} heading I used in my extremely polite notification that the discussion was not appropriate. As an experienced editor you should have re-instated the header and possibly commented, like you are now doing. You did not, which compounded the incivility.
- FYI I do not interfere with good article work, but I certainly do apply WP rules, policies and guidelines where I find they are not being adhered to. LessHeard vanU 21:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Now please don't issue any more frankly ridiculous, counter-productive warnings like that, please try not to interfere in the work carried on in the Doctor Who project, which is widely recognised as one of the best fictional projects we have on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Again I warn you that you're interfering with necessary discussions. There is some speculation, but that is inevitable. Believe it or not, we do understand about referencing, but we like to speculate. If you try to stop all speculation on the talk pages of the Doctor Who articles, by using your admin tools, I promise you, you will have some explaining to do. I won't stand for this kind of bullying of editors on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 22:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Threats don't impress me. Editors who use threats to attempt to bluff their way out of valid criticism of inappropriate actions impress me even less. LessHeard vanU 22:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Again I warn you that you're interfering with necessary discussions. There is some speculation, but that is inevitable. Believe it or not, we do understand about referencing, but we like to speculate. If you try to stop all speculation on the talk pages of the Doctor Who articles, by using your admin tools, I promise you, you will have some explaining to do. I won't stand for this kind of bullying of editors on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 22:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: Last of the Time Lords edit
Hi, I edited this article a few minutes ago (my IP address is 82.47.23.237), and I would just like to point out that the source did not actually have any reference to Colin Firth, regeneration or was in any way related to the content I deleted. It was slightly annoying to find that I had 'vandalised' when in fact it was the opposite taking place, so I wanted to set things right. Ah, I feel better now. Thanks for that! Eadian 00:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- (copied from Eadians talkpage)Thanks for your comment on my talkpage. I believe the "sourced content" I was replacing was the London Gay Pride screening], which had been removed per this diff. I did this after you made your edit, which was legit as far as I am concerned, so I apologise for not clarifying which "sourced material" I was referring to. LessHeard vanU 12:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's quite alright! It was just a little surprising, that's all. I promise to be more careful in the future when editing articles with such vigilant guardians such as yourself. :D Eadian 18:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. IP's are a pain to keep track of. Mark H Wilkinson 14:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd be grateful if you could keep your eye on things per bottom discussion on the above page. Ta! Tyrenius 01:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Your note
Okay, agreed, I think, although I think NOR is protected. I'm losing track to be honest. Any assistance/advice is appreciated. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, now I see. Yes, agreed, and thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
re User:EverybodyHatesChris
I am pretty sure it is User:EverybodyHatesChris that is spamming the Coral Smith article with the IP 75.61.126.12, something can be done?--Migospia†♥ 17:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay well if it not EHC (although it seems like him with the edits he makes) still the ip makes too many edits in such a short time that it makes it hard to compare versions--Migospia†♥ 13:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
My RFA
Hi Mark, just a quick note to say thanks for participating in my request for adminship. It was successful and I now have some shiny new buttons. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Happy editing, mattbr 10:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the heads-up
He's a sock of community-banned Dereks1x - completely obvious when you've dealt with him 10 or 20 times before. (And- last time I looked, no, I'm not a bloke!) Tvoz |talk 23:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- I check on a regular basis: no changes to report. Thanks for the latest heads-up - it's all so tedious. Tvoz |talk 00:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
^_^
♥Fighting for charming Love♥ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 22:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I am working on all the constructive critisism I have received. Hopefully next time I will have sorted out everything you pointed out. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
More on Watchtower....
You know, I went back through his contribs (before today's debacle), and I find him making similar arguments over an MfD CambridgeBayWeather started on a page of WS's: "ignorance of policy", "stretching policy for his own ends", an instance of canvassing, and that's only on the first page of contribs. He got hung up on User:Hamsacharya dan for a bit, to the point where he was named in an SSP. The diffs aren't important for purposes of my argument here (though I'll certainly go get them), but I'm thinking that this Joseph Smith issue is simply an instance of a pattern of behavior, which is pretty sad as the account is only a few months old (14 March 2007, first four edits were reverts). Seems socky to me, but that's another issue; it's the pattern of behavior that concerns me, and it's not the behavior of our usual suspects, so it's not one of them. MSJapan 21:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm... Perhaps this is something to bring up on the WP:ANI thread, the repetitive behaviour when an edit is (part) reverted. I would then let other admins draw their own conclusions. I also note that Watchtower Sentinel has not edited for a couple of hours, so I am content to see if (s)he continues to provide their own rope. LessHeard vanU 21:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yep. Just edited. I will flash out that other stuff though, and add it in. MSJapan 21:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, this user is requesting unblock, and has promised not to upload the offending image anymore, but to go through deletion review. As I believe this is a good faith unblock request, and I promised to speak on his behalf if he said he'd stop, could I ask you to consider unblocking this user? Thanks. The Evil Spartan 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Removing sourced material
Thank you for your message. Please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard where you will see the real problem I and others are having with Smatprt. [[26]] (Felsommerfeld 16:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC))
DreamGuy my response to those who have commented on this user's blocking
(Posted also on individual talk pages) Thank you to Bishonen, LessHeard vanU, Hamster Sandwich, Lsi john, Butseriouslyfolks, Pascal.Tesson & Evilclown93 for taking an interest in this matter. I appreciate the views you have provided and understand them all to be in good faith. I detail the following comments for historical purposes:
- For the record I do not get upset by comments made towards me on wikipedia. If you feel that I have, those feelings are incorrect, and I wish to go on the record as saying that I do not have any personal issue with or feelings against DreamGuy in any way.
- People will have different views on edit-warring. That was absolutely neither my intention nor, in my view a reflection of my actions in regards to Image:Daredevil46.jpg. DreamGuy placed a tag initially [27] on July 5th that said, This images has been deleted probably some 20 times now under various names.... no fair use, not cover art that was used as cover, needs a speedy delete as recreation of deleted image, and the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen.
- I assume as a part of his admin role Evilclown93 removed that tag as detailed here.
- Dream Guy's reply (unknown to me at the time) was to suggest that Evilclown93 was a sock of the uploader.
- It was only a few days later that I, also as a part of my admin role came across the speedy delete request and confronted with the above rationale, agreed with Evilclown93 views and removed the request stating in my edit notice: reverted edits by DreamGuy to that of Evilclown93 - who is not a "sock" but an admin. Pls use only correct speedy tags before replacing (if at all).
- A further four days later, again just as a part of my admin role (see history of my admin work for that day) I came across the renewed speedy request, again with the above rationale. Confronted by no more information, I removed the speedy noting in the edit summary: Speedy deletion tag removed - awaiting a NPOV request that retains civility! You will note that I was talking about the content of the speedy deletion tag request of which I considered words such as the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... to be misplaced, no matter the frustration felt by Dream Guy. I then left the matter.
- DreamGuy it appears renewed his request again and without alteration at which point Butseriouslyfolks removed it, it was renewed and then Butseriouslyfolks put it up at WP:FUR.
- I came across it a day later and after I had left an adjusted canned message (which as most of you know includes a welcome to wikipedia line) on DreamGuy's talk page that also said, politely, Please assume good faith in relation to tagging an image for Speedy Delete. The reason that two (and now 3 admins) did not agree with your tag was made more and more obvious to you. Quite simply your request was polluted with a non-neutral POV and did not nothing to assist us in attending to the request. Please do not continue to suggest speedy deletion in this method - no matter what editor is frustrating you with their additions as it belittles your otherwise good work. Keep editing! My warning therefore was in relation to his edit-warring with three admins who did not agree with his method.
- In relation to blocking ... Following the posting at WP:FUR - at which I note Dream Guy has commented, he still reverted Butseriouslyfolks' removal of the speedy tag, even after Butseriouslyfolks wrote in his edit summary, Let's discuss it first, please?. Finding another reversion, despite an ongoing request at WP:FUR and noting that DreamGuy has been warned before and blocked before, and most importantly that whatever any admin did DreamGuy would revert, I blocked him for a period which I considered at the time to be commensurate with his previous block and the continued reversions. To the extent that others consider that amount of time excessive I thank you, and particularly to Pascal.Tesson for his revision of the time line.
- I note the comments above that in the opinion of an other editor Dream Guy is not the most polite individual on wikipedia, but he damned sure isn't the most acrid either and I agree totally. Whilst DreamGuy may not be able to accept that my message to him as detailed above was positive - I reiterate here again for all and sundry that I believe he is an otherwise good editor that was confronted by enormous frustration over the image he has been trying to delete. HOWEVER my job as I understand it is to assist in the protection of wikipedia. For those edits that relate to this matter - in my opinion DreamGuy needed to be blocked so that the process of deletion or otherwise of this image could be dealt with, without having to battle his continuing nose thumbing at the Good Faith decisions being made - especially with regards listing the matter at WP:FUR.
- I should end by also indicating that my becoming unavailable at the time I did had everything to do with it being 2.00am in the morning at my location (bed and pillow beckoned) and no other reasoning.
Again thank you all for your comments. Please let me know if anything at all needs further explaining. With best wishes --VS talk 02:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
2007 Games
Ok, I'm sorry... Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I asked for the opinion of user:Shiggy, who edited the page recently. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Macca
Cheers Our Kid! Couldn't have put it better meself! Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
A very big thankyou
Thankyou for your support in this thread. I rather felt I was under attack there for quite a simple issue. ViridaeTalk 23:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Che
Perhaps you would like to mediate, or if not, make the changes you proposed; either one would be acceptable to me. Thank you in advance for your contributions. Gtadoc 19:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response, and I will ask the person you mentioned (looking through the long history now...) as I am looking for a 3rd party to rewrite it. Best Gtadoc 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way (yeah, I probably should've created a new header for this question, but I'm lazy), I seem to recall seeing a tag that one can add to article talk pages, to request a broader outside opinion on a subject. But, for the life of me, I can't remember what that tag was... do you?
- Good call, I believe you were thinking of this {Wider attention} Gtadoc 21:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you need to unblock or reduce the block on User:Tim Osman - he clearly violated 3RR and has been incivil. I do think that fairness demands a 3RR block on User:NYScholar, and a warning about calling content disputed "vandalism" and "BLP violations", neither of which applied to Osman's edits to Joseph C. Wilson. I've filed a report at WP:AN3. Argyriou (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have blocked for 48 hours, same as Tim Osman. Perhaps they can now find something they agree on - the actions of a certain admin! ;~] LessHeard vanU 21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
They're at it again... Argyriou (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
the Godfather of the Beatles article
Can I have your opinion, as the Godfather of the Beatles article, regarding my query (Tin Pan Alley) on the Beatles talk page. This contextually incorrect (to me, anyway) reference is bland, and is not beyond our imagination to replace with something more meaningful. It wouldn’t be difficult to avoid its use as the Beatles touched upon many musical styles (i.e. experimenting with comedy and avant-garde to their more obvious exploring of pop and rock). Speaking of which, it also wouldn’t hurt (in my ever so humble) to expand this section. MacDonald would be one good source for this (introduction: Rev. in the Head) and there are many others. What do you think?--Patthedog 18:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay... I'll pop over just after I find some cotton wool to stuff into my cheeks. LessHeard vanU 19:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Good Catch
My, that was embaresing. That you for pointing that out to me, I would have missed it otherwise :-)
|
The TomStar81 Spelling Award | |
| Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that LessHeard vanU has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page Wikipedia:Request for adminship/TomStar81 2, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 20:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC) |
- Don't worry to much about missing the award the first time around. This is probably the easiest wikipedia award anyone can get, but that doesn't make it any important :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Genre Bollocks Ali
Sincere apologies. It was very unfair of me to do that, but it certainly wasn’t meant to be personal. I was getting a bit frustrated - silly really, over such a small thing (why does that have a familiar ring?) - and so I think I'd just better leave it. Thanks anyway for your response. Cheers, --Patthedog 12:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I see you blocked the above user for abuse of editing privilages, yet I'm a little confused, what editing privilages have been abused? He has a username that is against policy, that's it. We use {{UsernameBlocked}} for these users, not {{uw-block3}}. Also, we don't block account creation like you have done. Please can you sort this out ASAP? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Accidental block on my account
Thanks for the sincere note of apology. I did get caught by the block, but was relieved to see that it was removed quickly. No harm done. The block log tells an unambiguous story, and I suppose the history will add some "character" to my wikiprofile. :-) --orlady 02:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Carlosmac
I did the talk-to-user redirect because I've seen that done before on other indef blocked users. I undid the redireect for you too. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 18:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Redirects
When you have a redirect page, the way to access the Redirect is as follows:
Let's say page "X" redirects to page "Y". If you type in "X", it'll give you "Y" with a notice that says "Redirected from X". Where it says "Redirected from X", click on whatever "X" is and that'll take you to the redirect and allow you to edit it. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Re: Herrscythe
Re your message: Thanks. I left it for the reporting editor and just in case the article got recreated. Since it hasn't I removed the report. -- Gogo Dodo 20:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Iupuicees
Just want to doublecheck that my note about the user at AIV was read. The name seemed similar to the previous account thus I brought up my concern. I want to make sure I didn't make a leap of bad faith here. And as per your message at the top, you may reply on my talk page if you so desire. :) -WarthogDemon 21:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. :) Also wondering, should the other account be blocked as well? So far User:Cees iupui has gotten is along the lines of a final warning, not a block. -WarthogDemon
- No edits since final warning. If you see anything, let me know. LessHeard vanU 21:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You blocked User:Iupuicees indefinitely for persistent copyright infringement. He had created two articles which were tagged for speedy deletion as copyvios. One of these (Lilly Arbor Project), IMO was and is not a copyvio. It cites and relies on a single source, but does not copy any sentences from that source. I have removed the speedy tag. The other relies on a different source/web site from the same entity, but does copy multiple sentences, although they are rearranged and edited. The user alleges, on Talk:Lilly Arbor Project, that he has permission to post from that source on Wikipedia. While this editor obviously needs to be educated, in view of these facts, i think an indef block is not warranted. I ask that you consider unblocking. DES (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. I will look into the edits and deleted edits of User:Cees iupui and act as the merits seem to warrant. I note that in this edit you left a msg on Cees iupui's talk page saying that he was indef blocked, but no block appears in the block log. This seems odd. DES (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- After reviewing the edits of each, i am fairly well convinced that User:Iupuicees and User:Cees iupui are the same person. In addition to the close similarity in username, subject, and tendency to post content copied from web sites, there is an identical not quite correct use of {{cite web}}.
- I think that it is probable that this person intended to contribute positively to the project. I think it is at least plausible that this person at least believes that s/he has permission from the organization whose websites s/he has been copying from to do this. I suspect that this permission, if it exists, does not constitute a full release under a free license, and even if it does, Wikipedia needs to be properly notified of such release.
- Therefore, I intend to take the following actions:
- Remove the block message from the talk page of User:Cees iupui, since that user is not actually blocked, according to the block log
- leave a message on the talk page of User:Cees iupui. In that message i will:
- explain in detail Wikipedia's copyright policies;
- explain what we would need to demonstrate permission to copy content;
- explain why even if a free release has been granted, it is better to rewrite content;
- explain why multiple user accounts are normally a bad idea, and ask that he select one or the other, or a new, third account (since both these user names are at least technically prohibited as matching the name of an organization);
- Ask that s/he communicate with me, with an undertaking to edit properly in these respects in future, and indicating which single username will be used for the purpose, and warning that further apparently copyvio edits will lead to a block;
- I will place a copy of the same msg on the talk page of User:Iupuicees
- I will not unblock User:Iupuicees unless I receive an statement that the user wishes to use that user name henceforth, understands the copyright issues, and undertakes to edit in a proper manner. If I do get such a msg, i will unblock.
- I hope you do not object to any of the above. Thanks for your earlier response to me. DES (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Consensus
Thanks for the comments on my failed RfA. Honestly, I thought that was what consensus was, but I wasn't sure, so I second-guessed myself and ended up with pie on my face. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoops!
That shows you how stupid I am - I didn't look at the dates! Oh deary me, I must stop drinking Zipfer beer... :) --andreasegde 17:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
|
My RFA | |
| User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
Re:ChaosSorcerer91
I would consider constantly reasserting dubious facts into articles without discussion or consensus a form of vandalism, especially since he has been warned on this matter. Along with other stuff like this seriously make me question his actions. Sasquatch t|c 20:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
new subject
|
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| Thanks for the compliment ;) ACBestMy ContributionsAutograph Book 20:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC) |
Pretties for you...
I hereby award you, with all due solemnity (which is to say not very much at all) this highly prestigious and edible award "The Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence". I award this to the editors who do good work in all the various places I bump into them, and also to editors who look a little bit hungry. Wear it with pride, noble wiki-warrior! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
My RFA
I thought I could pass, but it's all illuminated now. Thanks! Laleenatalk to me contributions to Wikipedia 12:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Since this involves ignoring last weeks ANI resolution, I'm informing the editors who were involved. I thought you'd be interested. Miss Mondegreen talk 14:20, July 30 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Hi, LessHeard vanU, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy UCP 04:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Nilsson23
Thanks for the block. Darrenhusted 12:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Mrcineman
Actually I did fill it in, but it showed up like that any way. Thanks for the advice though! Cheers, JetLover (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me?
at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jade_Knight you wrote: 21:27, 31 July 2007 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) (I removed a report on your "BLP vandalism" at AIV) (undo)
Are you saying you deleted a report at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AIV about a violation of wp:BLP? --And before it was seen and acted on by an administrator? Please reply at my Talk Page. 69.154.18.251 21:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Two entries of below are copied from Jade Knight's talk page, in case you don't see this right away (I forgot to sign in before posting as User:69.154.18.251. I'm not doing "sock puppetry," I'm trying to keep the specific wp:BLP from being too closely associated with any one username. This is a fiasco, and you can more easily help things by becoming more thoroughly acquainted with its origin. Thanks. Piledoggie 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I removed a report on your "BLP vandalism" at AIV
- Please see [this] which was posted by User:Doggiepile, who has placed a warning at the top of your talkpage. My brief review of your contribs, talkpage, etc. indicated that you are in discussion with this editor so I shall leave it up to you how you wish to proceed. I will, however, be notifying Doggiepile of my actions. LessHeard vanU 21:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's User:piledoggie, but your mistake is understandable. Your 'brief review' was too brief...I am not in constructive discussion with user:Jade Knight, please check my userpage and also today's entries at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Church_of_Christ_%28Temple_Lot%29 for a much better idea of what is going on. Thanks! And please re-instate my vandalism/BLP violation report. Piledoggie 21:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I shall not be taking any further action on this matter until I get a response from Jade Knight (who I hope is able to reply to the appropriate page and under only the one username). Goodnight. LessHeard vanU 22:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Piledoggie
You are correct in your assessment. Piledoggie is the same as User:69.154.18.251, as well as users 69.152.175.114 (recently blocked for vandalism) and user 69.149.223.55. He is using WP:BLP as a green light to remove sources from a Wikipedia article that he happens to dislike, and insists that it would be a violation of WP:BLP to discuss whether or not these sources would be appropriate or not for the article. The Jade Knight 22:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
And just an FYI: He's already been issued an ODRS for reporting this, and it has since been dismissed. He tried to drag User:OwenX into this, as well. The Jade Knight 22:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- FYI, I didn't know an ODRS was dismissed, because none was formally presented to me. My rough understanding was that there would be seven days for resolution of dispute, during which time the offending article was to be edit-protected. The protection was removed after 24 hours, and Jade Knight continued his violation of BLP policy. If you check my talk pages, you will see I was never formally issued "an ODRS for reporting this." Piledoggie 00:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Moved from my talk page
I removed a report on your "BLP vandalism" at AIV
Please see [this] which was posted by User:Doggiepile, who has placed a warning at the top of your talkpage. My brief review of your contribs, talkpage, etc. indicated that you are in discussion with this editor so I shall leave it up to you how you wish to proceed. I will, however, be notifying Doggiepile of my actions. LessHeard vanU 21:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- My actions above were questioned by User talk:69.154.18.251, who I note i) you have also been discussing BLP matters with, ii) had recently come off a 3RR block, and iii) uses the term "Sir" as a form of address in the same way Piledoggie does. I have asked them whether I ought to request Checkuser or go to WP:SSP regarding the similarities. It seems that one was editing whilst the other was blocked. Again, I will leave this up to you on how you wish to proceed but I will let you know of any response to my query. LessHeard vanU 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- if you would examine the controversy at the wikipedia article in question, you will see that piledoggie has also posted under three other anonymous IP's (but none others), and not because of "sock puppetry," but because of the BLP violation and the mass confusion generated in and by Jade Knight has created the necessity for me to post anonymously. But also when I forget to log in. Piledoggie 22:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It's User:piledoggie, but your mistake is understandable. Your 'brief review' was too brief...I am not in constructive discussion with user:Jade Knight, please check my userpage and also today's entries at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Church_of_Christ_%28Temple_Lot%29 for a much better idea of what is going on. Thanks! And please re-instate my vandalism/BLP violation report. Piledoggie 21:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- I believe you are talking to me? No, I will not re-instate the AIV report; it was in the wrong place (much like this response!) - go to the BLP Noticeboard if you insist, as advised. LessHeard vanU 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- after further discussion with Jade Knight and some contemplation, I realize that you are correct: going to the BLP Noticeboard is what I should do. Piledoggie 05:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikidudemans RFA withdrawn
Hey, I've decided to regretfully withdrawal my RFA. Based on the numbers I don't believe it would have ever been successful. It seemed to have gotten off to a bad start and then went down hill from there. It's very unfortunate that it turned out the way it did however I do appreciate your participation. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Piledoggie (2)
Piledoggie seems to have chosen to abandon the diplomatic route. He/she posted complaints about me on the WP:BLP noticeboard without notifying me/posting a notice on the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) article (and which the noticeboard has determined were not valid BLP complaints), and I have absolutely no idea what this is about. Have you noticed anything in my conduct which constitutes harassment? The Jade Knight 09:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- (It may be worth noting that Piledoggie has also made legal threats over at the WP:BLP noticeboard). The Jade Knight 10:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Reply
Actually, I didn't notice he had an ONLY warning. midunderstanding. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Blocking that Vandal!
Thanks for blocking User:TheEmperorWarlock!
IamMarkBlake 22:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
AIV Case /Fashion Model Directory / The ip case you asked me to look at
I think the FMD is supposed to be the fashion industry version of IMDB - which is most certainly not a reliable source. Having protected the page, I felt that BLP came into play because incorrectly recording ethnicity in a living person's bio is unacceptable. I couldn't find any other reliable sources on a quick google search so reverted back to the version that did not have this information. Since then the ip/new editor has queried this on my talk page and since protection policy prohibits protecting to a preferred version, I have put it up on ANI [28] for review. I thought you would want to be aware. Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 22:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 02:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
IP block
Apologies, I didn't realise that "please log in to edit" thing was also a block, and referred to the final warning above that. I'll be mindful of that in future! Liverpool Scouse 21:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Re IP reported at AIV
Hi. I understand that you do not like to block IP addresses. If they continue I will request semi-protection. Thanks --The-G-Unit-Boss 12:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, The reason I reported him/her is because they continually added info whicih was weasel words but used the companie sown website as a source. I realised afterwards that their recent edits used different sources. Thanks for the help --The-G-Unit-Boss 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
User:Lonewolf BC
By all means, no; I'd have no issue with that at all. One of the key problems I have with this whole affair is a dearth of communication from him. Having someone else ask him for an explanation is exactly one of the things I'd like to see happen. --G2bambino 13:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. --G2bambino 13:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Edit Wars
I've noticed over the weeks, that 'edit warring' editors (particular at 'commonwealth' related articles), 'tend to report each other for 3RR breachings. Is this a good idea? Though it's permittable, I think it would be better to invite 'Administrators' to review an article & let Administrators decide who has breached 3RR. Having 'edit disputers' reporting each other, seems to be an attempt to 'get the last laugh'. What do you think. GoodDay 18:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's cool; thanks for responding. GoodDay 19:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment
Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. And also thank you for keeping the tally updated - it's a little thing, but it really meant a lot to my obsessive-compulsive side :) LyrlTalk C 00:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Fran14
I was about to add User:76.192.216.52, another sockpuppet of User:Dingbat2007 to the mix, which is also commiting vandalism, the same that User:Fran14 was. I haven't warned the user yet, as I was just going to add it to the WP:AIV board. I will though, warn the user now. - NeutralHomer T:C 21:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have Warn4'ed the user and reverted all vandalism. Am checking Recent Changes for further vandalism on other IPs. - NeutralHomer T:C 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not a problem :) You have a good sleep. Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 21:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the block recently placed on this IP address: yesterday, I picked up that this IP was making a sequence of edits, changing the categories on articles. In particular, in each edit, they were removing Category:Jewish American actors, and replacing it with Category:American Jews and Category:Jewish actors. However, when I went to check the first category, I noticed a CFD template had been placed on it; checking the relevant discussion, it turned out it had been decided to delete Category:Jewish American actors (as the red link will attest).
So, in replacing a soon to be deleted category with two that covered the same area, it seems to me that the IP was likely acting in good faith, and not trying to vandalise the articles. (Though their efforts weren't strictly necessary, given that a bot was soon set to remove the category from all those articles.)
Anyhow, that's my two pence. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 21:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. If they contest the block on that basis I will concur with an unblock; however it seems a strange change of cat, usually a CfD will be because there is a duplicate cat (usually just a change of sequence). If the cat is being changed to defeat the purpose of the deletion then it is still (very much) vandalism. Anyhow, I'm off to bed shortly so someone else can wrassle it. LessHeard vanU 21:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, its not a duplicate cat - therefore the ip is attempting to keep the Jewish identity within the article categories. Since they are giving no reason I am inclined to believe it is vandalism. Again, it depends on what the unblock reason given is. LessHeard vanU 21:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: Tmayes1999
Thanks for taking a look at it. Yes, he seems to have both gone quiet and had started to modify the problem behavior before he did. I suspect his next return to activity will still be frustrating for those of us around him, but I don't see any justification to consider blocking at this time. Georgewilliamherbert 21:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
AN
Okay, thanks. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
IPs
We can look up IPs of edits? When did this happen? Or do you mean that we can request them from checkuser? Cool Hand Luke 01:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Yeah, I would likewise only do that if they had earned a legitimate block. Cool Hand Luke 18:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Regarding User:Atraxus. You originally removed him from WP:AIV, suggesting he was already blocked. You then added a template to his page to tell him he was blocked. However, it seems that he is not blocked, unless I am missing something big here. See block log, and many contributions since you added the template, such as these: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. Like I say, if I'm missing something really big here, or if the way blocks work has changed, to allow blocked users to edit other user's talk pages, then please forgive me for reverting your change to AIV. But otherwise, I think Atraxus isn't actually blocked. --Dreaded Walrus t c 00:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a lot of fuss about nothing. Atraxus 00:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh
This cracked me up[34]. Okay...so I have a weird sense of humour.... Risker 23:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Cleanup templates
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup"etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:11 20 August 2007 (GMT).
Wikipedia: Young users
Hi - I'm contacting you because I haven't had time to work on Wikipedia:Young users - too much other wikistuff going on. Also, other than you and me, there seemed to be no interest, so I'm thinking maybe it would be best to delete that page.
I didn't add a deletion request to it, because you had entered comments there too, so I wanted to check with you first to see if you want to keep it going or not.
In addition to the lack of interest from adult editors in that topic, I also had an experience lately with a young user who did not self-identify, but based on behavior, he seemed to be young (though he's also Japanese so the language difficulty made it hard to tell). He did revert-warring on page moves and caused all sorts of hassles. I think when he saw his changes reverted by more than one person, he got frustrated and backed off, though I assume he'll be back again and it will resume. (I sure hope not).
I'm rambling,... the point is, I have the feeling that even if we wrote the essay, most young users wouldn't be interested. The ones that would be interested will probably be the same ones that have parental guidance anyway, so... maybe the essay is just not needed.
If you want to keep it going, that's OK with me. But if you agree it's not needed, you're welcome to delete the page and the talk page and archive.
It seemed like a good idea at the time, but... maybe not. What do you think? (reply here) --Parsifal Hello 09:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is a good idea, the age demographic of users is expanding and thus more younger contributors will appear on WP. I suggest that you move the essay to a sub-page of your talkpage, and when (not if) it becomes relevant again it can be reintroduced. Also, if you find the time, you might edit it - then if you give me the link to it then I can add any comments, if you think it might help. I believe that it should not be deleted, in any event. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 12:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I've moved it to my userspace along with the two talk pages. It's not an essay yet though, but I'll develop it over time and when I have something worth a look I'll let you know and you'd be welcome to add to it.
- For now, after I moved it, the Wikipedia-space pages had redirects, so I blanked them. But I don't know of a deletion-request template for that space. I could only find templates for user-page deletions, not for Wikipedia-space. It seems that needs an admin to do it. Would you delete those empty pages so they don't direct to my userspace? Here are the links:
- If there's a different procedure for this, please let me know.
- Thanks for your support of the idea; I'll let you know when I have something for you to review. --Parsifal Hello 06:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I only deleted the Archive, the essay page and talkpage were already deleted. I look forward to contributing when the situation changes (again). LessHeard vanU 12:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support of the idea; I'll let you know when I have something for you to review. --Parsifal Hello 06:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Spammer block - Thanks
Ref [35]: I had addicentally hit the Save page button in stead of the Show preview. I assumed that my first erroneous entry was removed by a bot, so I re-submitted the corrected request. But perhaps by then you already had taken action. Cheers, DVdm 14:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This page was created by User:Jam96 and has not yet moved it to his userspace after repeated requests. He's also added the page to the Wikipedia administrators category. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks. GlassCobra 11:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have commented at their talkpage that I will be deleting it unless moved quickly, and requested that the article be removed from the Admin Cat (I don't edit categories). I will watch the article, but I believe it a vanity piece and doubt the editor is interested in contributing further. LessHeard vanU 12:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's more a matter of ignorance on how to move pages or where certain information does and does not belong than any willful detraction from the encyclopedia itself. Still, thanks for keeping an eye on it. GlassCobra 12:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
RE: user account blocked
Ah I see, I thought it was a very sophisticated username policey violation, but I suspect it was actually someone trying to do a WP:POINT rather than trying to prevent one. My bad, but same result right? Or do you want it to be unblocked so you can do something with it? SGGH speak! 14:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Randomkid17
Thanks for blocking User:Randomkid17. This user had trolled on my talk page. NHRHS2010 Talk 23:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
for catching my typos, despite living here so long I still slip up too frequently for my comfort. Italiavivi 21:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I am frustrated !! Now I have seen that my article Croatophobia has been deleted. Reason for deleting is that article with that name has been deleted on 23 December 2006. This has been new article with name of deleted. Sorry but wikipedia is POV if she is allowing article which explain word Serbophobia and not allowing article which explain word Croatophobia. Can you be good and return article Croatophobia or delete article Serbophobia ?? My article has been with 5 internet sources which nobody can question (BBC, Harvard, Albert Einstein) and it has been deleted ???
- Because of 3RR rule for me is not possible to revert deleting of picture more of 3 times in 24 hours. My solution is that after 3 revert I put another picture. This other picture is what I have been writing :)) Rjecina 22:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've looked at it. I note that the original article was redirected to a similarly named article (Anti Croat Sentiment) which did not survive an AfD. Your article appears to have been speedy deleted as a recreation of the first article. I suggest you speak to the person who deleted the article (likely just an admin function rather than hostility), Sasquatch), for their reasons, and request a copy be placed on your userspace so you might try to work it up to an acceptable standard.
- As for reverting, if the picture had consensus then any reverting is vandalism and 3RR doesn't apply. If there was no consensus then replacing it with another also without consensus is not permissable, and leaves you open to accusations of both 3RR - since you are reverting the deleting of an image, it doesn't have to be the same one - and vandalism. It is best to try to get consensus, difficult as that may be! LessHeard vanU 22:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- About picture there we are having compromise from 19 August, but you know how hot headed nationalist come and start thinking that they are right (and do look agreements on discussion page)--Rjecina 22:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, if you have consensus/compromise for having the picture then reverting the deletion does not attract 3RR (and you can report those removing it). For myself, I do not partipate in nationalist issues... lucky for me! LessHeard vanU 22:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- About picture there we are having compromise from 19 August, but you know how hot headed nationalist come and start thinking that they are right (and do look agreements on discussion page)--Rjecina 22:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your comments on situation with Wikipediatrix
Thanks for your suggestions. I agree with keeping things in a formal tone, however, the same must also apply to wikipediatrix. As far as what articles or talk pages I participate on, that is my business and shall continue to do so as I see fit. Best regards,--Fahrenheit451 13:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Another matter, I don't think that this response [36] was necessary. I suggest you consult with admin User:David Gerard for some tips on how this certain group of editors operates. There is a considerable amount of provocation going on.--Fahrenheit451 14:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Following your previous comment, I would suggest that it is entirely my business on how I conduct my role as an admin, and act as I see fit. Provocation is no excuse for harassing another editor over a range of topics (which is how I read it, rather than the "stalking" complained of) through the use of inappropriate language. If you have a complaint against a group, or an individual, or an admin (such as me) then take it to the relevant venue. Do not, however, make the mistake in believing that you have any right to reply in kind. LessHeard vanU 19:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Another matter, I don't think that this response [36] was necessary. I suggest you consult with admin User:David Gerard for some tips on how this certain group of editors operates. There is a considerable amount of provocation going on.--Fahrenheit451 14:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- I did not state "Provocation is no excuse for harassing another editor over a range of topics", you did. Perhaps you are putting something there that is not. --Fahrenheit451 22:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Double Duh; My use of the term provocation is in the comment immediately above yours (derived from your allegations of concerted biased editing of Scientology sympathetic editors) and... your comment lead me to your talkpage where I noted you being advised not to "poke" wikipediatrix and not use abbreviations of her username - all of which I had noted as part of my first and final warning to you. I am now considering my actions. LessHeard vanU 08:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I did not state "Provocation is no excuse for harassing another editor over a range of topics", you did. Perhaps you are putting something there that is not. --Fahrenheit451 22:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Your comment is badly in error and uncivil. The editor you refer to indicated offense to "Trixi", but not "trix" or "WPD". Abbreviations are not the issue. Have a good day.--Fahrenheit451 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello. You blocked that user for spamming links to a website. He argues that the links were useful and not spam. I am inclined to agree. http://www.poetryarchive.org says it is "a not-for-profit organisation with charitable status", and the poetry readings it provides are encyclopedically valuable content. Would you like to comment on the user's unblock request? Sandstein 14:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Many thanks for your action regarding the above user, who was harassing me by edit-warring on my talk page. I am very grateful to you. --Stephen Burnett 17:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
good show
First time I've seen a 15 minute "time-out" since my kids were in kindergarten. I love it. Tvoz |talk 16:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- But on the substance: I don't think anyone would disagree that the Pang stuff should be sourced, just like everything should be sourced - but my question is whether fact tags are enough or if this is so contentious that it's legit for BLP to be invoked and the section removed. Seems to be a difference of opinion on that. But I see no reason to have elevated it to a main section - it belongs in "personal life" if anywhere, as it has been for ages, I think. The hothead factor over there is pretty amazing. Tvoz |talk 17:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly, I'm a tad stunned over the block, whether it be 15 minutes or 15 years - it wasn't warranted. I was the only there following the rules. Please tell me precisely where I was doing anything but enforcing wiki policy. The dudes there wanted to include something without citation, and when I warned and then removed uncited (and disparaging) material from the article, they suggested I go back to the Harry Potter articles, and leave it to the experts. If that isn't an ownership issue, please point out one that is. Their response posts were extraordinarily uncivil personal attacks, and they would revert any changes I made in the article whatsoever, including spelling changes, replacement of free images with non-fair use images, and simple section header capitalisation.
- I did nothing wrong, save for get a little hot under the collar over over the pointed refusal to follow wiki policy. It's a BLP article, if for no other reason than thealmost entirely uncited info included in the article regarding the Lost Weekend affects two living persons who have articles within BLP: Yoko Ono and May Pang. The content of the proposed Lost Weekend section constitutes a set of extraordinary claims, and those requires extraordinary citation, as per wiki policy. To allow it to stay is to invite a lawsuit.
- I request that the block be removed (even though it's duration began and ended whilst I was offline), as I was enforcing explicit wikipedia policy, and your block puts my actions on par with those of someone for whom the policies are to be ignored. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with your intention but not your execution. I was enforcing policy, whereas the other user was enforcing personal viewpoint. My edits protected and strengthened the article, where as the other editor's only delayed the inevitable edit. I think I hold the higher moral ground. I would still like it reversed. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
On another note, you might want to watchlist the May Pang article too, as the same issues exist there. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Vandal
Do you remember me and my favorite vandal ? Now he has started new actions. Deleting picture from article Chetniks because picture is "copyrighted" and puting tag copyrighted on picture. This is link for picture on internet [37]. If you agree that copyright of picture is OK can you please create protection against new user and user without name for this picture ?? --Rjecina 17:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for user page mistake.... --Rjecina 20:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Poor user:Koppany is under vandal attack on talk page. It is bad that you do not understand Serbian. You or somebody who understand what is writen will need to block user:195.252.126.225 Words are:"No gembeš (gembeš is maybe bad word for Hungarians ??)....part of our job is teaching gembeš....all gembeš need to know Serbian anthem...we have teached gembeš which are more bad of you but they know now Serbian anthem. There is hope for you " Rjecina 17:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Hello. Thanks for your help against user:195.252.126.225 vandalism. Have a nice day. --Koppany 17:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: Userpage edits
You're welcome. Just sorry I put it back in the wrong place first time round. Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 05:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking him. You are more patient than I am with this user, it appears, but that's probably a good thing in an administrator :-) Reply at my talkpage, please, if at all. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 11:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
re James Beckford vandalism
I have blocked the ip reported to AIV for 3 hours only. I am not convinced that the edits were blatant vandalism, but the editor was edit warring without discussing the changes. I suggested, in my block notice, that they discuss the proposed changes at the article talkpage when the block expires. For the record, and I do not mean to sound condescending here, I do not think the text you have replaced the vandalism with is of the best quality. If the ip does open a discussion I believe that you could join in to get a good resolution to the wording. LessHeard vanU 12:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Taking another look, this specific article isn't POV, but if you look at the article's history, and other edits he's made, he has been POV pushing from tons and tons of IP's, and occasionally has been trolling on User talk:AngelOfSadness. Three hours is fine, though -- he's already moved on to another ip. Gscshoyru 12:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
69.48.16.210
1 year for a school IP doesnt seem great to me. --Dweller
- Hi. Appreciate your response. I think it's way too harsh for a school. I think the jump from 1 month to 6 was done too swiftly and from 6 to 12 on the first recurrence of a batch of vandalism just seems OTT. Your call. Hope you don't mind me gently criticising! --Dweller 12:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Very gracious of you. Of course you may. I'm probably a lenient blocker generally, but I'm very cautious with school addresses, because the vandal using the IP at 3.15pm local time will be replaced by the good kid at 3.45. While we definitely should block school addresses for flagrant and massive vandalism, this one just seemed a little hard. --Dweller 13:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi LessHeard. I've protected this page for three days to stop the edit warring (or at least slow it down). I'm not sure why you rolled back this edit ([38]) using your rollback tool and then blocked the user for an hour, as his edit didn't seem like vandalism - he just seems to be on the minority in a rather lame edit war. It's usually best if you don't block editors you are in content disagreement with (it can come across as a conflict of interest). Neil ム 14:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Your comment
Your comment about "lack of experience for the citizens in democratic debate" you left at Jimbo's page may be easily interpreted as rather offensive one. Please refactor it if possible. --Irpen 23:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. I will have a look. LessHeard vanU 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Fahrenheit451
I would not be opposed to your suggestion if the behavior continues, unfortunately I don't think the point is getting across any other way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
??
What? What did I do?--Crestville 10:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Um, edit an article on my watchlist! LessHeard vanU 14:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hilarious!
This diff was awesome. --lucid 14:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I was wearing my Groucho Marxist moustache while writing it... LessHeard vanU 14:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
"I strongly suspect you are a Scientologist"
Hey there, I can't keep running to the admins noticeboard every time one of these people pop up or I'd never get anything done, but this is starting to turn into Whack-a-mole here.... User:Chrisp7 made a derogatory comment here about 2 of the 3 editors who voted 'keep' on this AfD, including myself. He then made even more direct and slanderous accusations at me here and here. I bring this direct to you and not the board because it's far less of a harassment matter than Shinealight2007 and Fahrenheit451's insults, but it is improper, it is offensive to me, and it does point to the continuing problem going on.
The Scientology articles are increasingly in gridlock by warring factions of pro-Scientologists and anti-Scientologists, and increasingly, there's a mindset there that you must choose a side - and since I tend to think the current state of the articles go WAY overboard with anti-Scientology original research, undue weight and WP:BLP concerns, and because I'm a stickler for encyclopedic fairness, I'm increasingly lumped in with the Scientologists (who actually can't stand me either and think my edits are too negative against Scientology - you can't win!). wikipediatrix 16:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipediatrix please read my response on the talk page, I would refer you to WP:CIVIL code. I have not made one derogatory comment about you, I havent make any derogatory comments about anyone and my intention at no point has been to offend. I find your escalation of a matter that is minor and in my eyes isnt even an issue, quite frankly, ridiculous. Chrisp7 13:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever. Don't insinuate that I am a Scientologist again. Period. It's an insult and I won't stand for it. Anyone who speculates on the religions of other editors has no business trying to invoke WP:CIVIL in their own defense when it pisses off the person being insinuated about. wikipediatrix 13:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, Not whatever, I have found your tone and handling of this minor situation, kneejerk, over the top and uncivil and a complete waste of time and you have broken WP:CIVIL. Please try to act in a civil way in future - I had absolutely no ill feelings to you whatsoever before this. I however apologise if I caused offence by saying I thought you were a Scientologist and retract the statement. Chrisp7 19:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- LessHeard I have wriiten a response on my talk page if you have time could you have a quick look, thanks:)Chrisp7 19:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever. Don't insinuate that I am a Scientologist again. Period. It's an insult and I won't stand for it. Anyone who speculates on the religions of other editors has no business trying to invoke WP:CIVIL in their own defense when it pisses off the person being insinuated about. wikipediatrix 13:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipediatrix please read my response on the talk page, I would refer you to WP:CIVIL code. I have not made one derogatory comment about you, I havent make any derogatory comments about anyone and my intention at no point has been to offend. I find your escalation of a matter that is minor and in my eyes isnt even an issue, quite frankly, ridiculous. Chrisp7 13:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response to Anon
Thanks for this: [39] I missed the comment from this editor, and appreciate your help! Hiberniantears 21:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Copyvios
I don't mind you posting, but I'm not in a position to do a similar project right now. Tyrenius 23:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Maria rivas
Thanks LessHeard, I really didn't want to resort to reporting that person, but I'd warned them 3 times on the IP, and four times on the name, plus Angel's warning, to no avail. I didn't just plop down templates, I took the time to completely explain the issues, inviting the editor to go to the article's talk page, and request a neutral editor review and add the appropriate information, but the editor refused, instead choosing to copy/paste. It makes me sad. While I'm not really super-obsessed with finding every teenie tiny copyright violation, when it is an entire article pasted, that's a completely different thing, and I just knew if I did not report, it would either be me allowing the violation to remain, or a continued reverting of a violator. I was between a rock and a hard place. I hope the editor will read the information I gave her, and read the policies and guidelines, and come back to help improve the article. And, thank you for your intervention in the situation. (I can get up and go get a cup of tea now! 
) Ariel♥Gold 16:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Lennon's Tomes
Hey, I think we need an admin to express some policy in John Lennon, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. Arcayne is being impossible with John Lennon and May Pang pages.Sixstring1965 20:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Um.... okay? (Yeah, alright, I'll pop over.) LessHeard vanU 20:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- A thankless job, being an admin.... so, while you're there - can you point to a better place to get help with understanding free images? Tvoz |talk 20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I guess the help pages are the place to start. My (somewhat shaky) understanding is that by linking to the addy of the pic you get the details of the license, if it says GDFL (or GDFL, I never can remember the middle sequence) or Public Domain then it is free. It is likely that there will be a help page link around the licensing bit for folk like thee and me. I hope this helps.
- Being an admin is okay, the rewards are not what I expected - but then I misread porcupines for concubines so I am to blame, I guess! LessHeard vanU 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- A thankless job, being an admin.... so, while you're there - can you point to a better place to get help with understanding free images? Tvoz |talk 20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Damn, you made me noseboot Mt. Dew! LOL!
- I've encountered a problem with the provenance of an image SixString uploaded, presumably under Creative Commons. Creative Commons. Most creative Commons photos are specially licensed through Everystockphoto.com or within Wikipedia. A brief Google image search indicates that the image SixString uploaded as Creative Commons is actually a firmly copyrighted image, as seen here and here - the latter clearly identifying the image as being an AP file photo. One of the reasons Wikipedia got all crazy about images is that news services like AP and Reuters threatened legal action, citing Tasini concerns of image re-use without compensation.
- This is the second time that SixString has 'fudged' a licensing to shove an image through. This is precisely the sort of fraudulent behavior which gets folks banned from editing Wikipedia. Not seeking citations is one thing - manufacturing then is quite another. This is a serious issue, and if we cannot trust the imagery uploaded to to be licensed honestly and scrupulously, the entire article is in jeopardy. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- I really am not so hot on the image/licensing stuff, so I recommend you take this to WP:ANI or whatever the venue recommended at the image help page - with all the diffs/links per above. It is unlikely the article is in trouble, but whoever uploaded and/or tagged the image may be. LessHeard vanU 12:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. DuncanHill 21:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Response
I understand what you're saying and agree that it would make the article read better. My only concern is that it presents only one side of the story to the reader and, if they choose to go no further, they only get half of the information. Could we add a sentence at the end stating something to the effect "This 10Q filing has recently been the subject of controversy" and then hope readers look further? On another subject, I think I might do a total overhaul of the Legal Allegations section when I have the time. It looks sort of beat up, and there was another lawsuit brought against them just yesterday. Plus, some of the information I can't find listed in any of the sources. Jean314 11:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Should we keep the general info bland (i.e. not mention their rating in Forbes etc.) initially and then mention the companies strong points and its controversies later on in the article? Also, when would you want to work on this and who is responsible for what?Jean314 18:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!
|
My RFA | |
| I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. Edison 16:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC) |
Modelun88
Well, does he now fall under being disruptive, he's posted on probably 25 user's talk pages, telling them about it, (would that be canvassing? not sure) and he's probably still going. Well I've filed a RPP report along with AIV Yamakiri 00:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I will look at their contrib history again... LessHeard vanU 01:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well you're right, that's what made me disappear last time... Now my usertalk edit count has spiked probably to half! How will I manage that! I've watched RfA's fail just because of the talk count! Should I disappear again? Yamakiri 01:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Should you? It is only the internet, and only a bit of that. The best thing is to do what makes you happy, and avoid what gives you stress. If you find what you think is a vandal then report it and move on - let other folk like me deal with it. In truth, no I don't think you should disappear (again? do I know you previously?) but maybe find an area where your enthusiasm is not soured as quickly. I'm off to bed now, but if I can help just ask... LessHeard vanU 01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well you're right, that's what made me disappear last time... Now my usertalk edit count has spiked probably to half! How will I manage that! I've watched RfA's fail just because of the talk count! Should I disappear again? Yamakiri 01:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
User:204.52.215.6's warning
Hi LessHeard vanU, I'm just dropping you a note RE: the warning I left to User:204.52.215.6. The warning was for editing tests to Feminism [40], but due to there being a current final vandalism warning there I used an IM-tempalte, which was probably the wrong option. I think you made a good call by not blocking the IP - I concur that their edits since those to Feminism seem to be in good faith. Apologies if I made a mess--Cailil talk 21:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Thanks for supporting my recent successful RfA despite never having heard of my nominators ;) . I've been easing into things and haven't spoilt anything yet. See you around. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, LessHeard vanU. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.
For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 21:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Axel8/Demyx9
Just so you know, the user I reported to AIV is also in "disputes" on the pages Scooch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Durmstrang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I don't really class it as a dispute because:
- He's replacing correct verified information with incorrect original research (which I think falls under sneaky vandalism).
- There's a commented warning that says that replacing the verified information will be classed as vandalism.
If he had a legitimate leg to stand on, sure, I'd realise it as a dispute and go to WP:3O. But when it's V'ed material against OR, it's hardly a content dispute. Will (talk)
- It was a verbatim copy of the 2007 rules - I'd never thought about it going down to one point because that's just a failsafe - I mean, how many football qualifying groups have been settled by drawing lots? Will (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have both Scooch and FTFFY on my watchlist, so it'll be easy to spot. Will (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was a bit tied up yesterday (damn my temper with obstinate people! lol). He did tell me that he and Axel were twins. As to the physiological nature of their twinship, I confess that we never really discussed the matter. I would suggest that you recommend (and I will do so as well) that they they perhaps use Wikipedia as an opportunity to pursue specifically different interests. This allows then to avoid the possibility of not only sock- and meat-puppetry, but of wiki-canvassing, as well. I do know that that Demyx reads to me as quite young - his heart seems in the right place, and he seems to take criticism appropriately. If this is a case of sock-puppetry, I've been suckered.
- I am not sure how WP is set up to deal with this sort of situation, but I imagine that it might be akin to the same way we approach married couples. If they vandalize, we warn them and then block them when they do not relent. If we notice complimentary edits in the same articles, we check their IPs. If they match, I am not sure what happens after that; do we give them an opportunity to prove they aren't the same person, and just use the same comp? Do we insist that they pursue different articles? I haven't the foggiest - I am not an admin. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Editor on blanking spree on multiple pages
Can someone look into this? User:Gnanapiti is blanking whole bunch of paragraphs, sections, links claiming WP:OR, WP:NOT and WP:SOAPBOX
- here and here in Sethusamudram page and
- here and here in M. Karunanidhi page
- here and here and here in Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham page Anwar 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
RfA--personal note
I've done the group "thanks" for my successful RfA, but I wanted to just take a minute to thank you personally and particularly for your again reminding me not to reign in my word count for the sake of succinctness. That was very kind of you and most welcome during a stressful procedure. :) I appreciate it. --Moonriddengirl 01:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you clear it up.
2 things, my name is Axel8 noat Alex or Ajax it's from Kingdom Hearts 2 and is a really good game and you should play it.
The other is we are confused, tell me if we got this right:
- Anything you edit you have to site at the bottom of the page.
- We can both edit but we have to not edit at the same time or the same pages
- We aren't allowed to back eachother up but we don't have to diasgrre (really didn't get this one.)Basically we can't say anything cos were'll always agree because we are twins, well not always because he gets well loads of things more wrong than me.
We share one computer so our Ip thingy will be the same so can't we do it so that in like voting things we are counted as one although this is a bit notfair as we rr difrent people just twins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel8 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
OMG we always get the same marks and you even got that question wrong about Gravity the other day.
Also less heard van u we don't really want to have to share Ips but we will if it stops us from being blocked. As your an admin can you like merge our Ips together as we have the same compute and like tgen all our votes would be 1 and then that wouldn't affect it wold it.
Also what do you mean by our editing patern is the same, if it means we agree we don't always because just last week I said that Durmstrang was in Russia but he said Bulgaria so we don't always. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demyx9 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You said we should edit diferent ones or we could edit the same and be blocked and when you said something like we're pupets do you mean because we respect Arcayne because if so isn't that an insult to us calling us sheep because the thing is last week when me and Demyx had to share acounts because Kate would only create one for us for free but said she'd charge for the second 1 but then we found out how I could get an account, anyway Arcayne helped us understand the rules and that's why we respect his knowledge of wiki because he's just looking out for us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel8 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Less, they sent me a message about this problem. Could you send me a note explaining what the problem is as you see it? I know you're busy, but I think it might be best to nip this problem in the bud if its possible. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll keep an eye on them, but I think they are finding their wiki-legs now that people aren't accusing them of being socks. Hoprefully, they will keep me posted if they run into trouble. I've watchlisted both of their pages and told them to holler if they get in over their head. I know you are busy, so thanks for taking hte time. Stay frosty. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Request for your Review
My apologies for not updating sooner, but I've been busy with school recently. I've done a preliminary draft of an update for the USANA artcle dealing specifically with the lawsuits being filed agains them. I would like for you to review it, if possible, and suggest changes to ensure NPOV. I'll paste it below Jean314 13:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Legal Troubles (Probably not the best title)
One day after the release of the Barry Minkow report, shares of the company's stock declined by $8.92, or 15%..[1] Accusations leveled against Usana by Barry Minkow and the FDI, were listed as contributory factors in the decline of the stock price and have subsequently led to several lawsuits being filled against the vitamin distributor.
On April 4, 2007 Guerin Senter and two other USANA shareholders filed a class-action lawsuit against USANA Health Sciences, Myron W. Wentz, David A. Wentz and Gilbert A. Fuller. The suit alleges that USANA presented materially false and misleading statements about the company’s financial situation and business practices. Included in the allegations were that USANA’s business model was unsustainable and amounted to a pyramid scheme. The suit also cited several findings from the report released by Barry Minkow.[2]
USANA has also been named the defendant in a proposed class-action lawsuit brought against them by some of the company’s distributors. On June 21st the Associate Press reported that the lawsuit was being filed in the state court of California, which has tough multilevel marketing laws. This lawsuit seeks to ban USANA from doing further business in the state, which is one of USANA’s largest markets. The lawsuit alleges that USANA failed to disclose “material adverse facts” to those recruited to sell the companies products. The lawsuit seeks damages for “downline” distributors who purchased products which they claim they were unable to sell due to the inflated prices. The lead plaintiff in the case, Christopher Crane, is claiming damages of $500, but additional plaintiffs will see that number rise.[3]
My RfA
Hi, I answered as well as I could for now. See my posting at this diff for more information [41]. Bearian 02:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- My final answer is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bearian#Questions_for_the_candidate. Bearian 15:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
AXEL8 + DEMYX9 VS sceptre
Remember our dear little friend sceptre who reported us for no reason. Well now he's editing this article and now its really negative. So what did we do, scanned the rule book and found lost of rules. We went onto the talkpage of the article to discuss how we think it could have a more neutral point of view, but apart from this guy and us no-one's gone near the article since may or June.
So we took it to his talk page and e started talking all technical, but this time we understood it more, he told us that this is how it was and if we touch it "It will be considered VANDALISM a word he shouts far too often.
So we thought we'll edit slightly a bit each day just so that it's lees biased and he won't notice but he did and changed it back.
He says this group came 23rd out of 24, when we point out that 42 competed he says, any attempt to change this will be considered VANDALISM you have been warned.
Also he cites a webstie that concerns the tie break rules for 10th place and first place but nothing about any others.
Now he says that all of Malta only voted for the United Kingdom as a protest. The website he sites is just one mans opinion.
Please guide us in what to do next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel8 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not identifying the changes as vandalism (if I would I'd press the "Rollback (vandal)" button. Will (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Btw, thanks for the barnstar. It was quite unexpected. Sometimes, I fly off the handle. It is pretty awesome to get commended for keeping my cool, and positive reinforcement. Now, if I could only use barnstars as pick-ups to get laid more often, Wikipedia would be the best thing evar. lol - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Btw, what that craziness with the twins and the unruly fellow cleared up? I fropped a message on his Talk page, but he hasn't got back to me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Btw, thanks for the barnstar. It was quite unexpected. Sometimes, I fly off the handle. It is pretty awesome to get commended for keeping my cool, and positive reinforcement. Now, if I could only use barnstars as pick-ups to get laid more often, Wikipedia would be the best thing evar. lol - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, the twins working vandalism? Jeez, that's could be the making of a wiki legend right there...brrrr. :)
- About bots, I use a G5, and most bots are written for the pc, so no go. Plus, I don't trust bots to run automated most automated tasks. I think if you are going to edit, do it by hand, and lend the human touch; we have enough users, so most of the crap will get caught and purged by others, leaving the truly thorny issues for more weighty consideration. then, that's just my thought. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just so you know, Axel8's reverted to the "22nd" version despite being warned not to umpteen times. Will (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Axis101
These sort of accounts are common, but I still like to give the user the benefit of the doubt by assuming good faith. Although I don't have high expectations, I do hope the user will amend his/her ways. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Responded on my talk
You missed a diff; A Kiwi clearly asked her to put it back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
172.129.240.83
FYI: 172.129.240.83 (talk · contribs) has made an request to have the duration of their block reduced. Your call. Kuru talk 23:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 23:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh my God
We did everything by the book we went onto the discussion page but only he answered us. So we talked to him he seemed to accept it and went quiet for a bit. We changed it and acctually learnt how to site a source and we did and we made it sound more neutral instead of his negative view on it and we only put facts. We said 42 he said 24 you ask anyone howmany competed they will say 42.
We even met halfway and agreed to say tied with france which is true and he says they lost to france.
He also has some funny theory that malta fixed the 12 points just because someone said in their opinion that Malta might have voted in protest. Just because he's an older editor and 2 weeks ago we didn't really understand doesn't mean he's right. We can't keep on badgering Arcayne because that is unfair on him.
Sceptre is just a nasty person who hates us because we're new and make him look 5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel8 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Cool down the personal attacks. Also:
- Any changes to the position to "22nd" are being counted as vandalism as the official result is twenty-third.
- That "someone" is the head of the jury for Malta, not some random homeless person. Will (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
re User:76.199.87.51 report to AIV
Sorry guy - in my haste, sometimes I get tilde-challenged. dhett (talk • contribs) 01:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
re: User:122.163.102.174 report to AIV
Thank your for your prompt attention to my report and reply on my user talk page.
You wrote there today that "You have not warned the ip, or even written to them on their talkpage. They had also 'only' reverted twice, thus not violating 3RR. You also did not sign your report at AIV. Please follow all procedures before reporting 'vandalism' in future. Thank you."
I thought I left the four tildes at the end when I copied the example abuse report, and that this would constitute signing. Also, I thought my username DID show up when I looked at the (very briefly appearing) abuse report on the screen after I entered it. As for warning the IP, how can I when they use a differen IP (but all beginning with 122.163) every time? An extensive history of previous abuse from this IP is available on my user talk page. I will continue reverting the Logical connective article until the required number of reverts has accumulated. Cullinane 13:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I reverted some vandalism he had done to an article on a school in Brighton, which seems to have upset him! DuncanHill 16:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
No content dispute
There is no content dispute. Arcayne dishonestly removed a reliably sourced attribution claiming that the source didn't say what I said that it said. Furthermore, he reverted to an unsourced contribution made by an anonymous account. You also misread what I said and wrote about Andreasegde. Please read it again. I'm afraid you are misinformed. Lastly, Arcayne has been doing this for a long time in several different articles and I have the diffs. —Viriditas | Talk 21:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, he has the diffs...which rather show his edit-warring than mine. I actually have a pages-long list of his behavior, which I just keep compiling for his inevitable RfC. This could go back and forth, and Viriditas will undoubtedly reply (he isn't really that nice, but he is certainly predictable). Whether he replies or not (and the only reason he would is if he's stalking my edits again) is immaterial. My views on one of the less-pleasant folk in Wikipedia is hardly of value here, so I won't be replying.
- Anyway, I reverted his edit, as the source claimed didn't actually say what the statements tied to it said. He has since added a better source, so I no longer have an issue with it. It's what I asked for, and he complied with that request. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's false. You reverted an edit[42] where the source did claim exactly what was requested [43] and you recently engaged in wikistalking behavior by showing up on WP:LEAD to participate in a discussion about citations that I had been engaged in for some time. You also stalked me to San Francisco burrito at 04:51, 24 September 2007 and Spam (food) on 05:02, 24 September 2007. —Viriditas | Talk 22:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Tweety21
Tweety21 (talk · contribs) is asking for unblock. Since the original block she has engaged in sockpuppetry, although it could be that no one had previously had a decent talk with her about how this place works. I am leaning toward giving her a second chance and would appreciate your views on the discussion going on at her talk page. Thatcher131 19:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: In Wikipedia, X is an Article, not Evil
In general, I like your new essay In Wikipedia, X is an Article, not Evil. It’s something that certainly needs to be read by a great many editors, perhaps before they begin editing. The main constructive criticism I would offer is that it is rather long-winded. Many of those who move quickly to personal attacks are not the patient, reflective sort likely to read the whole article – they have their opinion, are rarely interested in acknowledging facts to the contrary, and (in their mind) only have to straighten out the biased idiot who is messing with the “truth”. Besides which, attention spans are not what they used to be. Perhaps you could tighten it up and add some brevity (and maybe even a bit more levity)? Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 15:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- And here I thought you had just finished the first-pass, blowing-off-years-of-steam version! ;-) Askari Mark (Talk) 19:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the welcome note. I really cannot believe the childness and mindless ness of some of the comments especially theis Jack Merridew guy. I thought I would drop you a note to say that an editor as an IP address) had removed some comments from my talk page, and then Jack Merridew reverted them again? I really do not understand fully what is going on, but i feel that he has got a vandetta against me even though I have only made one or two edits to the actual encyclopedia. Surely his recent allegations and behaviour would not be tolerated by any other user, is he one of wikipedia's owners? Anyhow I am going to upload a better picture to the Chris Conleya rticle as the onen that is there is a little blurred. Can you please keep an eye on these rougue editors to make sure they don't bully me anymore? Regards Punkguy182 19:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Shrub 'o doom
Thanks for blocking this one, I was just about to go in and block SoD too, that was a pretty vicious trick with the page. I couldn't even fully load the first one...I wonder what that does to the database servers... Dreadstar † 08:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Ditto from me for that "Kramerkidd" character. I thought another admin had blocked him and I thanked him for it. Thought I should correct that but I just got back from rescuing my son who had a blowout on his way home from work...and it's 2:42 AM here and I'm way too lazy to log in to boot. Thanks and good night! Regards, User:PMDrive1061 via --71.102.80.39 09:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
My personal apologies for the incident triggered by a vandal. I have replied here. --Jacob.jose 14:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, would appreciate if you could unblock the bot for further test run unless you insist that I file a bot request. Through my tests, I have been trying to figure out stuff like the number of edits per day to request.. Would something like 250 edits/day (max) be an acceptable rate? or say, 1000 edits/week (since I plan to run the bot on weekends)? --Jacob.jose 14:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your directions; I have made a request here --Jacob.jose 15:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: List of GLB People
I had since stopped my actions after objections were made on this Talk page, as you could see above. I also noticed that the users erased it from their Talk pages and I let it go. I am offended that an AN would be raised about this, especially after my repeated contributions to Wikipedia over several years. Raising the issue on a user's talk page was a "kinder" and "gentler" approach than notifying administrators. Your comment didn't provide me a direct link to the argument, though frankly I want nothing to do with it as I am tired of the commentary per David Fuchs as it is going around in circles. I assume he was the one who started the AN, as he has since gone to my RfC on Mattisse and seems to now have an agenda against me, which I have been kind enough to ignore and not raise issues about on the RfC. Please keep in mind that I myself was the subject of an invalid Warning from Mattisse, and I was kind enough to raise an RfC for commentary instead of notifying administrators. I try to handle problems on my own or ask for commentary from other users about the situation. Again, I find this highly offensive and in bad faith, and think the administrators could have done better than this by looking at my Talk page. - Cyborg Ninja 23:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for any misunderstanding. I meant the AN and David Fuch's actions were offensive, not you for notifying me. I suspected there was more commentary from admins about this, but I've looked at the AN section and there isn't. - Cyborg Ninja 23:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I apologise for comments on your talkpage which indicated that I was displeased by the response to my queries, and accept your comments that it was directed at the raising of the matter at WP:AN and not my intervention.
- I have assumed good faith in not questioning why individuals were even considered as potential recipients for further comments for positions they had taken in a closed RfA (not that I noted either you or the complainant there), and I do not care for whatever methods or routes were used when it is the result that matters. Also, it is my opinion that experience of and in WP requires a greater scrutiny of possible breaches of etiquette by long time contributors - as the individuals should know what is and isn't permitted. As it is I have closed the comment as resolved by your confirmation that you are not pursuing the matter. I trust that this is the end of this matter. LessHeard vanU 23:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you.
That is fine with me. Thanks! --Mattisse 00:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the sanity check[44]. I though twice and realized my comment was unhelpful and removed it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 01:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI
Thanks for your intervention on the ANI. This is the result of your kindly encouragement:
Thanks, --Mattisse 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Scanner
You commented on the USANA Talk page that a poster is in the same geographical location as USANA itself. How close to the corporation is the poster? Also, how are you capable of monitoring these sorts of things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerald Black (talk • contribs) 22:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is a function for ip addresses entitled "whois" (and another one using the same system) which runs a reverse tracking system. For most addresses this will locate the ISP and its local hub, and will sometimes find who the ip is registered to. That is the one commented on the USANA talkpage. There is also a service called Wikiscanner which does much the same thing, but investigates if the ip is owned by an organisation. This service was not used, since the ip's were conforming with WP practice once made aware. I would comment that usually registered accounts cannot be traced in these ways. LessHeard vanU 12:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It seemed quicker to me to go to AIV and just get the blocks in place, but I have to claim a little ignorance, not having spent much time at WP:SSP (though I knew it was there). From my standpoint, it's quicker to report them to AIV, or perhaps just more familiar for me. I can do an SSP report in the future if it's more appropriate. Tonight I'm going to read up on WP:RFCU and consider posting a request there to have the IP identified and blocked longer, because this has been occurring for a few days and over several accounts now. Any advice? Sorry if I circumvented process; Not at all intentional. Into The Fray T/C 13:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I did wind up filing an SSP report because I was able to identify the underlying IP based on contributions. Thanks for your advice. Into The Fray T/C 23:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Classicfilms made Two of Us a DAB page and moved the existing song article previously under that name to Two of Us (1969 song). IMO, that's not in the spirit of how pages in WP should be named. The Beatles song spawned the other works for which the like-named articles exist. How does one protest/revert such a move? Can you step-in, please? I may be wrong, and if so, I'll accept your perspective on the matter. John Cardinal 03:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
re "My talkpage" moved from User:El_C's talkpage
What was the point of that? It is still in the history, and you could have simply <redacted> the comment - with a note commenting it was from a banned user - or left a message under it. I would not have attempted to contact this user, but I am concerned that you did not display the good faith in allowing me to deal with it myself. I am quite familiar with the policy regarding banned users, possibly more than you are in respect of editing other editors talkpages.
I find it difficult to reconcile your earnest attempts to do what is right by Wikipedia (by your standards) with your abuse and violations of the policies and principles you are attempting to uphold. LessHeard vanU 12:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I rollbacked an edit from a banned user editing through an open proxy. Arguing this does not display good faith is, frankly, astonishing. El_C 12:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Banned users get reverted, does not matter which page. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- From Help:Reverting#Admin feature#Rollback, "...If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted." refers only to articles, not user talkpages, and generally removing content from another users talkpage is not permissable per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. As it is, I am suggesting that WP:CIVIL required an edit summary at the very least, if the policy/guideline (a link would be appreciated) on acting on upon edits by banned users is in conflict with the above pages. LessHeard vanU 21:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- WP:Ban#Enforcement by reverting edits: "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves (this includes article talk pages, reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner). As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion." El_C 21:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- So, what part of "...reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner..." (per your quote above) do you need help with? LessHeard vanU 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Can≠should. El_C 22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- In light of "WP:Talk page guidelines/Editing comments" you might have to reconsider that interpretation. LessHeard vanU 22:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- As for your original note: is this how you normally conduct yourself? That's your idea of a polite request? El_C 00:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yup.LessHeard vanU 12:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- You could have avoided all this acrimony and longwindedness by just asking to revert banned users on this page yourself. Simple, uncomplicated, non-hostile. El_C 20:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- You could have avoided it by leaving an edit summary when you removed a third parties message on my talkpage, per my original post. I am uncertain that you even looked at my page when you used rollback, as I know it can be operated from the user contrib history, so any request to do my own reverting would not have been seen, but, hey, I'm going to AGF. LessHeard vanU 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- It would have been seen. El_C 20:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- You could have avoided it by leaving an edit summary when you removed a third parties message on my talkpage, per my original post. I am uncertain that you even looked at my page when you used rollback, as I know it can be operated from the user contrib history, so any request to do my own reverting would not have been seen, but, hey, I'm going to AGF. LessHeard vanU 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- You could have avoided all this acrimony and longwindedness by just asking to revert banned users on this page yourself. Simple, uncomplicated, non-hostile. El_C 20:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yup.LessHeard vanU 12:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- As for your original note: is this how you normally conduct yourself? That's your idea of a polite request? El_C 00:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- In light of "WP:Talk page guidelines/Editing comments" you might have to reconsider that interpretation. LessHeard vanU 22:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Can≠should. El_C 22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- So, what part of "...reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner..." (per your quote above) do you need help with? LessHeard vanU 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- WP:Ban#Enforcement by reverting edits: "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves (this includes article talk pages, reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner). As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion." El_C 21:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- From Help:Reverting#Admin feature#Rollback, "...If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted." refers only to articles, not user talkpages, and generally removing content from another users talkpage is not permissable per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. As it is, I am suggesting that WP:CIVIL required an edit summary at the very least, if the policy/guideline (a link would be appreciated) on acting on upon edits by banned users is in conflict with the above pages. LessHeard vanU 21:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Banned users get reverted, does not matter which page. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
RFA Thanks
My dear Wikipedian LessHeard vanU,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 36 supports, 3 opposed, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. Thank you and good day.
Credits
This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor, who in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunately this is not entirely my own design.
This end the usual RFA thanks spam. You may return to your regular editing now.
My recent RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 01:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree with your position.
I would hope you would reconsider your thoughts on the matter concerning User_talk:167.206.140.11 A three month period would seem a short period of time to continue to vandalize after 3 final warnings have been issued within that space of time. Can you honestly not see from this user's talk page that he does not contribute to wikipedia and that his edits have had a very familiar tone over the course of one year's vandalism on wikipedia? User5802 16:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- The OTHER user I reported at User talk:121.45.218.12 has not vandalized after his final warning. However I felt because of his interjected racism into wikipedia here this may call for a speedier removal than normal. I do understand this may not follow wikipedia policy, and if racism does not constitute a ban after 2 recent warnings than I understand this user not being banned. User5802 16:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing the WP:ANI information. This concerns the second individual User talk:121.45.218.12 which I agreed may have been too early of a report. Can you please give me to a response to your statements on the first individual User_talk:167.206.140.11 having not recently posted after the 3 final warnings that are on his page. I would like to know if you still hold the position this user should not be banned, after looking at User_talk:167.206.140.11 and viewing the similar postings this user has made in his vandalism of wikipedia over the course of 10 months, AFTER he has received at least 2 final warnings User5802 16:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm.. It does appear that there have been some constructive edits from this IP although they have been few and far between the vandalism. These constructive edits occurred approximately 10 months ago. I count a total of 4 constructive edits out of 29 instances of vandalism here. What would generally cause a user to receive a long term or permanent ban? Can you give an example of a user having received one of these types of bans? User5802 16:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
~*Curtsey*~
As a fellow aficionado of humor (as your archive box so ingeniously shows - I'm waiting to see what you do with the number 6... 
), I am humbled by your bestowal of the humorous award to me. I realize I have a wacky sense of humor, and not everyone "gets it", but it is nice to know there are those who do appreciate it! Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 02:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- ROFL Well, that's better than the option I was thinking of! ~*Giggle*~ Ariel♥Gold 02:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
To my esteemed and valued colleague LessHeard VanU
- I thank my esteemed colleague LessHeard vanU for the appreciated and insightful comments on the Kreepy krawly talk page regarding the No Personal Attacks policy. Perhaps User: Kreepy krawly will communicate in a more sophisticated manner in the future so as not to sow confusion as was the result in this case. The comments of my esteemed colleague LessHeard vanU are always valued and important to User: Kreepy krawly. I invite LessHeard vanU to revisit the other sections of the important topic: Trivia is what Wikipedia does best; Wikipedia has become bigger than itself. In these sections several inappropriate personal attacks lacking direction or substance will be noted, and the offending users notified appropriately. Various veiled personal attacks will be noted. If there remains a failure to deal with these obvious personal attacks inadequately described above, it will be assumed that either User: Kreepy krawly has become a target of unfair recrimination or that that style of personal attacks is acceptable to the Wikipedia community. Thank you in advance for your efforts in this regard. Kreepy krawly 15:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'll look over it. LessHeard vanU 15:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Just as our group suspected would happen happened. I would have expected more, but I have learned not to get my hopes up when it comes to the culture around here, and that makes many non-Wikipedians very sad, as several thousand non-Wikipedians who rely on this Human Knowledge Metarepository (yes, it is no longer a mere encyclopedia), are extremely frustrated by institutionalized vandalism. I have raised the issue of trivia, and the broader issues that it represents, to over 5000 unregistered users, who are following this discussion very carefully, as it is just the beginning of a new dawn for the Wikipedia, and an end to vandalism. Your move is considered a blanking of sorts, and we consider it to be vandalism. Please do not do this again. We will use every tool on this site to stop institutional vandalism. We will use every tool available to sideline our arguement, which is yet a sapling in a bizarre, twisted forest. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation, my esteemed colleague. Oh, and as you "look over it," it would be responsible of any user to take note of actual meanings and circumstances, and to place them in the correct context. Kreepy krawly 20:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Again, thanks to your careful comments regarding Kreepy krawly. That'll do it. That's enough. Easy does it. In finality, this user is making every attempt to be nice, in contrast to the actual discussions currently raging outside the confines of Wikipedia regarding the Wikipedia Trivia argument and other metacognitions. Other users in this non-Wikipedia forum have not been so nice, but it is my job as "DC" of Kreepy krawly to manage official affairs and correspondence. I have alot of work to do, and the content recently posted is taken as demeaning, insulting, and distracting. We have no use for these comments, however they are appreciated in the context and scale from which we notice them. Nor is your personal identiy relevant, as you indicated yourself to be such and such. Kreepy krawly has no use for direction from other Wikipedia users, as we are entirely not confused about Wikipedia policies, however illusiory that may be. We recommend to this user an article that requires the expert and appreciated attention of a capable editor: Impossible bottle. Please feel free to redirect your unwanted energies to important issues such as this, as Kreepy krawly and many others will directly benefit from your efforts in this regard. Kreepy krawly 21:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant link?
What do you mean 'irrelevant link'? Did you actually read what I had written about the famous Aldershot gig of 1961? It is a famous part of Beatles history. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make it irrelevant! Please restore the link. Jack1956 15:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, per my comments at your talkpage. LessHeard vanU 15:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's very impressive, but I still dispute that my link was 'irrelevant'. The Aldershot gig is a part of Beatles history. Jack1956 15:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, I see what you mean. My mistake was to put it as a separate link rather than putting a brief mention into the body of the text. My apologies. Jack1956 20:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Recent vandalism
It did show a certain level of care and thought in its execution! Makes a welcome change from "poo"! DuncanHill 12:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
|
Thanks, archive 1! Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was a success, and I look forward to getting started! Hiberniantears 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
hi mate
he is not NisarKand because Beh-Nam is a Tajik and NisarKand an Awghan, an ethnic Pashtune. Dear Admins, plz check that out also his IPs. They are two different User. While NisarKand and DilbarJan are one and the same User and a nationalistic one but Beh-Nam has nothing to do with such activities. DilbarJan(/NisarKand) claimed he would helping Taliban but since Beh-Nam is a Persian and the Taliban were looking for cleansing Tajiks who could he be NisarKand self since Dilbar is allready NisarKand!? Plz dear Admins, unblock him. Beh-Nam is for a long time on Wikipedia and he didn´t do sth bad either against any nations nor against any User or any articles. The admins of Wikipedia now banned two or three of Tajiks who were one o the important ones here at least they were the sole Tajiks who were active. Plz Admins, ban DilbarJan who is writing articles from his nationalistic view. With best regards
--Aspandyar Agha 17:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Pleae help me!
The Cyborg Nina person is after me again. I filled an ANI complaint but I can see it will not do any good.
I know I flipped out here about the bot tagging my new articles as copyvios and over reacted for while I am very sorry. I hope I have not lost credibility over that. I'm calmed down now and I followed User talk:W.marsh's instructions and undid my disruptive copyvio postings as W.marsh requested, and hope to make amends. I have one little problem now which I was hoping someone could snuff out before it gets bigger. User:Cyborg Ninja seems to be following me around and entering comments on my page and the pages of others seeming to try to stir things up about me. I do not know why this person is so interested in doing this to me. Examples:
Would it be possible for someone to please ask this person to stop. (I'm just a little edgy and raw now or perhaps it would not bother me.) Please, please help me. Sincerely, Mattisse 08:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
For you, LessHeard vanU!
Please accept this from me to you.
|
The Barnstar of Peace | |
| For giving peace to my mind in a time of great turmoil with your clear thinking and quick action , I can never thank you enough Mattisse 17:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC) |
Reply to my talk page
Unfortunately, I think you're jumping to conclusions. Please tell me how exactly I am committing what you accused me of on my talk page. Is talking about a user to specific people on their talk page against the rules? Do you believe these are spontaneous people? I said it in the AN/I: I didn't want to go into further detail at the moment, but you give me little choice. There's such a long history that I'd rather gather it all together at one point because it is easier for people to see the patterns. Anyway, here's something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Congratulations_to_IvoShandor_for_21_DYK.27s_on_the_U.S._state_of_Illinois_so_far_in_the_month_of_October_.21 IvoShandor is one of the users I contacted. Outside of Dreamafter, who I was talking to for commentary on what to do about the situation with Mattisse, I only contacted people who had similar problems with the user like IvoShandor there, to ask them if they're run into any other problems, or what they think should be done. Even if other administrators declare that I shouldn't contact other users about this user, I will still investigate it further as I have the past few days because I don't want to see other users mistreating, threatening, manipulating, etc, others, and get away with it just because there are some people who aren't willing to do their homework before handing out warnings. - Cyborg Ninja 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, you're not being clear on how exactly I am violating policy. You say it's harassment, but how so? I don't see how contacting involved parties (not third parties) on their talk pages, where all is transparent, is a violation. I could just be ignorant of a policy, so feel free to inform me of where exactly it's at. This isn't about assuming bad faith either -- it's making note of the number of times a user has insulted, threatened, or otherwise caused disruptions to Wikipedia, and if you wish to ignore that and be blind to continual turmoil for the sake of a rule that you are stretching too far, so be it. But I think the policy will need to be looked into further by editors. By the way, I left more commentary on the AN/I section for this. - Cyborg Ninja 20:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there LessHeard vanU. I've taken the liberty of dropping this fellow's block to 1 week. He seems to have been provoked over some time by abusive sockpuppets, but seems to understand on his talk page that civility is expected under all circumstances. He has also contributed and communicated well in the past outside of these recent incidents. Hope it's ok with you. Take care -- Samir 23:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hate to ask again
Wonder if you will help me again. A while ago another user unilaterally redirected another article that I was working on into his. I asked if a person could do that without discussing it and I believe it was you on the ANI who said it had do be done through a merge.
Now I find that User:Cyborg Ninja entered the discussion on the talk page and misinformed the editor of the article that I had announced on ANI that the matter was closed (at least that is how I read her notes) so that the editor thinks the discussion is over and can go ahead and copy one article into another:
Please look at the talk page of the article Talk:Caisson (Asian architecture) and see that I was in full discussion with the editor before User:Cyborg Ninja entered the situation and the editor reverted the article to include the two articles -- before I complainted on the talk page and he was told to do a merge.
Hope I am not being confusing here. Regards, --Mattisse 00:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was not being clear what I was trying to draw to your attention. The person I consulted on ANI did clarify to the other editor that the merge procedure was necessary.
- One, I am asking you about Cyborg Ninga's interference and (perhaps I am reading it incorrectly) influencing that editor to disregard the merge requirements. (You recently gave Cyborg Ninga a warning about personal attacks on my behalf and this is one of the issues she entered into for no reason -- she had no prior history with the article and stalked me to this article talk page -- and interfered in a way detrimental to my dialog with the editor.)
- So the editor thanks her and completes the merge against my expressed input and against the merge requirements.[61]
- Two, after your warning, she is continuing her personal attacks against me on her talk page. Is she allowed to personally attack me on her talk page?
- This is an O.K. statement refuting your block warning and stating you are wrong, which she is entitled to her own opinion about: [62]
- Here, after the first editor who responded to my ANI request apologizes to her, she is criticizing your "copy and pasting" the links I put on ANI that you put on her page - which is between you and her. [63]
- However here, after the other editor suggests that she have a "fresh start" by using legitimate Wikipedia ways of dealing with her problems with me and suggest some ways, she posts these accusations about me[64] She is attacking me personally again, this time on her talk page: (this is copied from her talk page)[65]:
- Specifically she repeats her personal attacks anew on her talk page:
- Is this O.K. for her to continue to post these attacks against me, even on her talk page? Thanks! Mattisse 10:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, perhaps I am over reacting. It is just that this has been going on a while now by Cyborg Nina (See: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2 and show no sign of abating. She has poisoned the atmosphere on several pages that I used to enjoy by these accusations and I am getting worn down. As you say, when you are an active editor in writing articles, disputes are bound to arise.
- However I am just recovering from over six months of concerted attacks by a sock puppet ring, then several months more of attacks by the blocked sock puppets under new names after the ring was blocked -- the ring was accidentally unearthed in an Arbitration at the beginning of this year, after Mediation Cabals (where the mediator turned out to be a sock puppet), several RFC including one on me, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse, endless stalking (up to 37 times a day), endless personal attacks which nothing was done about and more. I am only now getting up my nerve to interact at all on discussion and talk pages.
- Perhaps I need to withdraw again. Go back to just editing my own articles that no one cares about unless they become DYK. And now I am realizing that DYK is dangerous for just that reason. It brings attention and therefore badness. I am going to stop DYKs. Thanks for helping and for giving me your honest opinion. Sincerely, --Mattisse 13:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. It is only that an article I wrote became a DYK that the article was noticed and then copied into Caisson (Asian architecture) to begin with and the #REDIRECT to the Caisson article. So DYK is very risky. I will stop that and stop entering discussion pages. My mistake was to start working with the Medical (psychiatry, psychology) portal. All those people are fine, but in doing work for the portal, one mistake and now I have Cyborg Nina on my back and all the recovery from the last year of pain is gone. I will deal with the Caisson article as what was done was so outrageous and I have complained many times before over it. That will be my last interaction, however that turns out, I will retreat from interaction. Those days of withdrawal are my happiest days on Wikipedia. I can just write, which is my interest, free from all this nastiness. Sincerely, Mattisse 13:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
RfA thank-spam
 |
Thank you! Thank you for your help in my RfA. It hammered home a few things I need to keep in mind while admining and passed with a final tally of 40/0/4; two people forgot to vote in time, leaving me short of that exquisite number :-(, but I'll just have to fudge the next vote about me. Adminship feels slightly august but not particularily exalted, so I shall endeavour to consider it a toolkit and make sincere efforts to know what I'm doing before using it. Regarding userbox summaries, I've turned reminders on but still consider using just a subsection's name sufficient when there's no particular reason to say more, and would like to hear from you if you disagree. --Kizor 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC) |
Apology
Sorry for the rant and aggravation of my last post to you. You give very good advice and I am taking it. As you say, a step back helps. I value your advice and thank you for it. Thanks. --Mattisse 15:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Miltopia AN/I comment
Your edit was reverted, it appears you accidentally duplicated half the page in your post. You may want to go back and repost your comment... just don't duplicate the page again, LOL... ThuranX 23:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
eh
see my talk, I replied. Hope all is cool. ++Lar: t/c 22:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Sri Lanka resolution
Pls see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Sri_Lanka_articles_dispute_resolution_in_effect. Thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • —Preceding comment was added at 23:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Mattisse's block
Hey there. Could you point me to the diffs you used to justify your block on Mattisse? Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sure; here, here, here, here, here, and here. These are in reverse chronological order if you want to review them as they unfolded (I would suggest you read the first chronological comment at Blueboars talkpage, then read the Caisson talkpage from the first chronological diff onward and finish per the diff on the Mattisse's talkpage). Your comments would be appreciated, but I am retiring for the evening if you wish a further reply. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 22:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Mattisse
I know you said you were tired of dealing with him... but now he is making threats of retaliation against me on his talk page see this dif. He seems to think it was my fault that you blocked him. I am not going to respond to him. All I want is to back out of this mess. Please help. Blueboar 02:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Bluebore ...sigh
- Sigh...I agree with Bluebore. This small issue has once again been blown out of proportion by Cyborg Ninja and the success she has achieved by being th messenger between Bluebore and PalanceGuard and the support, as they saw it, by your taking sides. If they will just stop talking about it I am more than happy to do so. It is a petty issue. I long ago conceded their copy/paste tactics worked despite policy. I is clear there is nothing I can do. I do not expect fairness. Lets drop it. I have been given a long list of anti-wikipedia links, and I think I will take my energies there. I have head those links are much more rewarding that these small minded preoccupations incouraged by admins who love wielding power. --Mattisse 03:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
More sighing
- Please ask him to just drop it. No one else beside you, Cyborg Ninja, Blueboar and PalacGuard008 is interested.
- I have asked you to clarify exactly what I did wrong, as PlalaceGuard008 and Blueboar are prolonging this and continuing it. Since I do not know what I did wrong I would appreciate an explanation. When Cyborg Ninja gets back in the ring (it is she who filled the mediation) then it is likely to escalate further. Please explain specifically what I did wrong (not diffs of long paragraphs where I cannot tell if you are saying if anything I said was O.K. in your eyes or only certain portions. I need specifics. If a do not understand, then a real mess has been created, the outcome of your actions is waiting in the wings. Surely you will get involved in the mediation as you are a major factor now, due to your taking sides. Perhaps there you will provide the specifics, as the links you have given so far will not be considered helpful.
- I will also explain that I spent one year on Wikipedia as a "nice" person always being polite and doing the right thing. That netted me pobably 15 t0 20 ANI complaints, got me labeled as a proven sock puppet (rediculous) and had me banned several times. This year, after the sock puppet ring after me returned and I realized that I would not get any help, I decided on the nasty approach. Unfortunately, the nasty approach works better. This is my first ban this year, and I do not think it is well substantiated. You still have not pointed out specific examples. Giving diffs to very long paragraphs is not helpful. Are you meaning every word I wrote in those long paragraphs were uncivil. Perhaps if I knew what you meant I would be in a better situation regarding understanding this. Now, I have no idea what you are talking about, as so much uncivil and personal attacks have been directed a me that do not count in you eyes. How can I tell the difference?
- Please do clarify or I will never understand. Mattisse 03:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)}}
Dealing w/ talkpage harassment
Hi. You might recall the business between myself and G2bambino, back in August, and my consequent making of a user sub-page as a means of dealing with talk-page harassment. That sub-page has just been nominated for deletion. Whereas you were a witness to its making, and to the circumstances of and reasons for that making, I hope that you will comment at the deletion discussion. You seemed, at the time, to understand the page's worth and usefulness. If so, and if that remains your opinion, I hope you will support its keeping. So far, it seems to have discouraged further spiteful posts on my talk-page, and I wish that to carry on, as the least troublesome ways of handling such nuisances. Thanks.
-- Lonewolf BC 20:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply
Yeah I'm discussing the case in here. I'll remove his msg on Jimbo's talk after he get blocked. Thanks --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 15:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- You can't remove the msg, whether my account is blocked or not. If you want to remove the msg on Jimbo's talk, discuss with User :LessHeard vanU as a separate issue.Kelbaster 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Removal should usually be done by an uninvolved party, per discussion elsewhere or not. As an involved party you should only act to refute the accusation and draw attention to any relevant discussion - unless you gain consensus at sockpuppet discussion for removal. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 15:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Your block and more
You continue to become involved in issues over Mattisse whenever she notifies you, though I and you yourself have noted that because of your previous involvement over the drapetomania article, you may have a conflict of interest. As for the supposed "personal attack," Mattisse was talking about herself and I commented on how I didn't know they let "old ladies" on oil rigs. Mattisse referred to herself as a grandmother in the past. Calling someone "old" and a "lady" is inoffensive. If I called someone a "hag" or "on their death bed," then you would have a point. But unfortunately, nothing occurred here except your inability to properly manage your job at Wikipedia. Your ignorance of my attempts at mediating the arguments over the Caisson (Asian architecture) article and past attempts in helping Mattisse over drapetomania and psychiatry is disappointing. I would hope that someone of your position would accumulate a background of knowledge before taking such drastic attempts of warning and blocking other members. Also, your arbitrary decisions while ignoring evidence of the other party's violations is repulsive for me to see on a site such as Wikipedia. I hope that a formal review of your conduct will be undertaken, and in the meantime I will assemble evidence of improper conduct on both your part and Mattisse's on behalf of the populous of Wikipedians. - Cyborg Ninja 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever. You do what you think is right. LessHeard vanU 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
New admin
See my SSP backlog note at AN, the brand new admin's response and my retort there and on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think your actions and comments are sufficient, nothing more needs doing for now. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 12:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Mattisse & Mediation
Hi, there's a mediation request pending at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Caisson (Asian architecture) concerning Caisson (Asian architecture), following the collapse of informal mediation after Mattisse stormed out. I have notified Mattisse on his talk page, but the notice seems to have been removed in one of the big deletions in recent days.
I wonder if you could remind Mattisse of the mediation request? I'm afraid she may not have noticed it when it got deleted, and I don't want to post again on her talk page, lest it provokes a reaction like the last time I posted. Thanks in advance, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a new administrator!
|
|
Thanks! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed with 54 supports, 2 opposes and 3 neutrals. Thanks for your support, I really appreciate it. I hope to exceed expectations, If you have any advice please feel free to let me know. Thanks again!. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ |
|
Thanks Mark
God bless Pal. Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
In Remembrance...
--nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
More trouble from 216.79.155.1
On 3 November you temporarily blocked User Talk:216.79.155.1 from editing, due to repeated removals of material. It now appears that he/she is at it again, only three days later. A large portion of the Controversy section of False Memory Syndrome Foundation was removed by 216.79.155.1, with no explanation. I left yet another warning on his/her Talk page, but I am skeptical that it will be read by the individual in question. No response necessary — please just do whatever you think appropriate. Cheers! —Aetheling 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
RE: WP:AIV
I will take to WP:SSP, thank you. Bmg916Speak 00:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Marie-Rose Mueller
Whether Wikipedia values supercentenarians or no, you can find them here:
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/
Are you a member yet?Ryoung122 20:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Whippersnapper! ;~) LessHeard vanU 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
My RFA
Deal? I've switched it on! I'll make an effort to make edit summaries from now on :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done! ;~) LessHeard vanU 01:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Smile
SJP:Happy Verterans Day! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Can you take a look at User:Hereinindy to see if that user is a sockpuppet? All the edits by that user are recent and vandalism. What's interesting, however, is that the edits were done with an obvious knowledge of WP. He/she uses templates, uses WP terminology (i.e., dab), includes misleading edit summaries, etc. The editor is almost certainly an experienced WP editor but the short edit history indicates the user was created for the purposes of vandalism.
If you are not available or not the right person, can you point me somewhere? John Cardinal 05:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I have begun a thread on Haizum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at WP:ANI#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action, whom you blocked today. • Lawrence Cohen 18:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
RfA
I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 12:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I just reset his block due to socks. Just to let you know. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Socratic Barnstar | |
| For your ability to think against the flow, which led the Privatemusings case to an amicable solution. — Sebastian 19:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC) |
Thank you to whomever...
...it was who altered my sig so my talkpage is appended. I had been meaning to do it since forever. -- LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Fellow keeps re-creating that page. I CSD'd it and you deleted it and he's done it again. ScarianTalk 13:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, no worries. Thank you for the delete(s). Have a nice day! ScarianTalk 13:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
RfA for Canadian Paul
|
Four years ago this day, a foreigner was voted by the community to serve a land that he loved. Today, a new foreigner humbly accepts the charge and support of serving a community that he loves. Hopefully, he won't disappoint. Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (47/0/1). The trust bestowed upon me by the community is one of the most touching honours that I have ever received, and I vow not to let you down. Whether you have suggestions for ways in which I could improve, a request for assistance or just need someone to listen, my talk page and my email are always open. I pledge to do what I can to help this project, in the words of a man who needs no introduction, "make the internet not suck." A special thank you goes out to Tim Vickers for nominating me. Cheers, CP 22:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC) |
My RfA
Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. — Coren (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I need a favour!
Are you around? ScarianTalk 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Aw, sorry! Ha, I have difficulty with patience so I got "Chase me ladies I'm the cavalry" to do the job for me. Although you can keep an eye on it? [69] ScarianTalk 01:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Aye, if you could keep an eye on it? I've warned both chaps, navlos slightly more harshly, as he's acting defensivley, but it's nothing that tea can't fix. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Block of Academy Leader
Less, I am more than a little disappointed that you chose to issue me a warning, rather than attempting to discuss the disagreement first. The warning is a statement that you believe you are right and I am wrong. That's no way to begin a discussion. Considering that I had reviewed the 530 contributions of Academy Leader, and you had not looked at the matter yet, you might not have had as clear a picture as I did. Please look at the wording of good hand, bad hand accounts and you will see that the behavior of Academy Leader qualified as a bad hand sock puppet. He has another account in good standing that he is free to use. I hope this disagreement between us can be resolved informally. I have appreciated your perspectives in the past, and felt like this warning was hasty and uncharacteristic. If you refactor your remarks, I will be pleased to adjust mine accordingly. - Jehochman Talk 16:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
File:Dainsyng.gif You are always welcome at my talk page. I am sorry we had a bit of misunderstanding today. - Jehochman Talk 06:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
re Mattisse block
- Hi LessHead vau! You should explain to Jehochaman that you are treating him specially that you even issued a warning to you!!!! You blocked me without warning quite a few hours after I had moved on from my conflict with another editor, and I lost a whole intricate article with many footnotes I had been writing in the meantime because when I tried to save it I learned, without any warning, that I was blocked. Perhaps you are an editor who does little article writing. Jehochaman appears to be one of the privileged ones as far as you is concerned! (You should take a look a MONOGO for a little reality check of what is blockable --- I have as many "contributions" as MONGO but I am not even eligible for the common decency Jehochman expects, never mind the extra special treatment MONGO gets.) Oh, well. It is good to be the king. Mattisse 17:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- That would be LessHeard vanU - n, capital U - and MONGO - only two "O"'s -. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. Thanks for the complete explanation. Your helpful spelling correction clears up everything. I will ask another to find out from you. Mattisse 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- You were behaving quite disgracefully with User:Blueboar, to the point that he was feeling harassed, who had previously had offered to mediate in good faith. My block was preventative, in that you ceased interacting with that editor. I would refer you to my archive five, last item, for the diffs regarding the specific comments. I would, in the meantime, request that we both remove our last comments from Captain panda's RfA since it is unfair to use that as a venue. Please note that I am aware of your raising concerns, albeit obliquely, regarding my actions at various venues (as, ironically, has User:Cyborg Ninja) but have chosen to WP:IGNORE them so as not to escalate the situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. Thanks for the complete explanation. Your helpful spelling correction clears up everything. I will ask another to find out from you. Mattisse 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- That would be LessHeard vanU - n, capital U - and MONGO - only two "O"'s -. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Pisky
I would use a -y, but I daresay there are huge arguments amongst Cornish-language revivalists about this! I appear to be back again! DuncanHill (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've blocked then unblocked beh-nam recently, he is vandalising pages so why are you not doing anything to stop him? I request that he be blocked indef due to his disruptive behaviour who is and has been vandalising pages after pages of national leaders by falesly inserting that they were child molestor, slave owner, facists, etc.[70], [71] He's been vandalising Pashtun people and many other articles for a very long time.[72], [73], [74]
He keeps removing the official government website from Afghanistan/Hamid Karzai article [75] and usually placing over it anti-Afghanistan blog sites, this after an administrator (Future Perfect at Sunrise) has warned not to mess with again. [76], [77] If anyone adds images of popular Pashtun leaders in the Pashtun article he will revert the page right away, probably that he does not want Pashtuns to appear good in the eyes of others. He is ethnic Tajik, a Persian nationalist, and anti-Pashtun or Afghan as well as anti-Turk.[78] He has an unusual extended block history which includes 2 indefs for which he was allowed back on condition to stop harrassing or personally attacking another ethnic group.[79]
Same as all other vandals, he will never change and will continue with vandalising pages by writing all sorts of untrue things about leaders who are not from his ethnic group. He reverts everyone who fixes his vandalism without explaining anything.[80] Beh-nam is working closely with a banned User:Tajik (who is hiding under anon IPs that start with 82.xx.xxx.xxx which is confirmed by several admins including User:Dmcdevit [81]) [82], [83], [84], and has User:Anoshirawan as his edit-war partner. He and his edit-war partner are going around changing the correct name Afghan (which is backed by the Constitution of Afghanistan, CIA world factbook, as well as all the government and media sites of the world) to a false afghanistani name simply because they like it. There is nothing that can be said to justify his actions, even if it comes from an administrator who knows him. Please ban this user indef so that the rest of us can have peace and finally fix all their vandalism slowly.--Hurooz (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't make a habit of keeping tags on editors I have sanctioned. As I recall I indef blocked per a report at AIV, but the block was reduced per a discussion on ANI which involved people more knowledgable than I - and I agreed to let them decide. That is all that I can remember. I don't have an answer for you since I do not know the details about the dispute. I regret that there are still divisions along ethnic, national, and political lines but I am not prepared to attempt to make choices between editors expounding different views. If there is an instance of obvious vandalism then I can act, but I leave it to others with more experience to decide upon the difficult areas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit summary
I'm not offended or complaining. I'm scratching my head. :) How does typing slower help? Mercury 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is an old joke, around the formula of "A (insert choice of ethnicity/culture/class here) Loving Mothers Letter to Her Favourite Son". In it she says that she is writing slowly since she knows he cannot read quickly... Other lines are, "This week it has only rained twice; once for 3 days and once for 4 days", "I was going to send you some money, but I have already sealed the envelope" and "Father has now installed the new washing machine; I put some clothes in, pulled the chain and we haven't seen anything of them since".
- In retrospect it wasn't the most helpful comment/edit summary ever made, and I apologise for making it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Its fine, I did not make to correlation, it flew right over my head. :P Mercury 23:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank you for your comments in my RfA and on my talk page regarding it. I agree that I will have to work on my mainspace contributions in order to have a successful RfA in the future. Hopefully, I will do that and have a successful RfA next time. :) Captain panda 21:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Jimbo Wales
I think you did right thing. Neither my User:Neo. deserve to comment nor obvious sockpuppet User:Smilehalt deserve to comment there. Thanks. 195.189.142.200 (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- The first comment was obvious (and I really hate both the word and concept, but it is apt) trolling and your response regarding WAS.520 - close enough? - disregarded the fact that he and Jimbo are already in discussion regarding related matters. That you are a self admitted sock did not help... Anyhow, it was only removed from the page and not the history. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Deception...
thanks for fixing the type-o. glad to see my articles being noticed by admin, i know its not much of an article, but im new to this. any pointers would be greatly appreciated File:FireFlames.jpgYes, I really am a Sith Lord (Comms) 00:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
halls of residence
Certainly they are not intrinsically or even usually notable, but they're not one of the things that can be removed on speedy as nn, according to WP:CSD A7; --many are copyvios, but if not, prod usually works DGG (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I did check for copyvio, and it was okay(ish). I will PROD next time. LessHeard vanU 09:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections comments
Good morning. Regarding your recent comments on the candidate votes page for Giano; unfortunately, the comments are too long and should be made at the voting talk page. The maximum length of comments on the voting page itself should be two short sentences. This determination was reached on prior consensus on the ArbCom Elections talk page. For your convenience, I have moved them appropriately, and have included a link from the vote page to the comment on the talk page - but feel free to edit my move to your preference. However, extended comments, like the ones you provided, are best placed on the talk page. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Thank you. - ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ta. I have reinstated one sentence from the moved text. LessHeard vanU 13:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk
Actually I was the one who instituted the block, not him. I have replied to your comment at AN/I. Guettarda (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I see. Maybe I should read things a little more carefully :) Guettarda (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Penwith Wikiproject
Hi, I see you are a member of the Penwith Wikiproject. A proposal has been made to merge it with the Cornwall Wikiproject. You can join in the debate here. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks.LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
two questions
you deleted a stub i created on a band, Victory at Sea, due to lack of asserted notability; i'm just curious what would qualify for notability? they released five albums and played for ten years, have 80,000+ 'scrobbles' on last.fm, an article at allmusic.com (which i had linked in the stub), and played many respectable venues, though none of that information really seems appropriate for an article.
i also have a separate, unrelated question/suggestion: instead of simply disabling vandal's ip addresses from making changes temporarily, could we make it so that they themselves continue thinking theyre making changes, but the changes are only visible to them? it might require too much overhead or something, i dont know. i was just thinking, it seems like a vandal who thinks he/she is still making edits might be less persistent in their vandalism than someone who is periodically banned and then returns either when the ban is lifted or when they get to another ip address.
i know there is probably a better place to post such a suggestion, but im not involved enough really to know where, and i figure since youre an admin, i might as well mention it to you. anyway, i would prefer you respond at my talk page please, and i appreciate your time with either question. --Quietly (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- thanks for the speedy response! my article almost certainly didnt qualify for notability, and theyre not such a huge band that finding reliable independent sources is easy, so ill look around, and if i can meet the criteria, ill recreate the article.
- also, with the suggestion, what im trying to express is, right now, when someone repeatedly vandalizes articles, (whether as an anonymous ip or registered user), you, as an admin, might disable their editing abilities for some time, right? what if instead, for the same period of time, a bot followed around their edits and undid them minutes afterward? or i guess maybe youre saying that would discourage any faithful editing that someone might try to perform during that time as well... which i can agree with. anyway, thanks for the pointers.--Quietly (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- okay, i figured out that their last two albums were released on Gern Blandsten Records, which qualifies for notability. so is it possible to undelete the stub? it was at Victory at Sea (band) and shows up in the deletion log. if not, i can just re-start it. thanks again for your help. --Quietly (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It's the colon
i.e. [[Image:x]] versus [[:Image:x]]. Of course, there's all new body part humor in the colon as well.... -- Kendrick7talk 18:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who I should bring this to (I just posted to WP:AN/I] but you seem to be familiar with this editor. She (I just realised) started a rampage of disruptive editing on the Psychopathy article earlier today...at first it looked as if she was a bit POV, but as she has gone on it seems as though she is actually making up many of her claims as she goes along (though they look convincing at first). The best way I can put it is that she seems to be reinventing both the article's topic and WP protocol as she goes along VERY insistently. I know the subject middling well and a lot of the claims she make (with apparent authority) verge on the ridiculous. She is removing or inlining valid citations...it's all really WEIRD...--Zeraeph (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your advice, unfortunately I don't HAVE a whole lot of time right now. I'll probably just have to leave her to it and recover the damage later. It'll be easier to make sure I explain it all properly on the talk page as a "block" rather than piecemeal, and less time consuming for me. It's also never a BAD idea to overhaul a stable article every once in a while. I have listed for "Third Opinion", and there are a couple of other pretty determined and knowledgeable editors who check in from time to time. --Zeraeph (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- To give more information, she has actually tagged citations for citation at one point [85] and also commented them out [86] on the grounds that they do not refer to Psychopathy, when one of them refers to it even in the title and here, with the addition of uncited commentary [87]. She adds uncited commentary such as [88] . Adds a POV tag on grounds of "inaccurate references continue to be restored - the article mixes up UK and US practices & does not distinguish between research findings & clinincal practices" which has noting whatever to do with POV EVEN if it were true, which it doesn't seem to be. There is loads more. I am beginning to realise I made a BIG mistake reverting her at all, because if I hadn't. the pattern of her edits all together would have been bizarre. Here is an example of her rationales on the talk page [89] "not used in court rooms to diagnose real people" that's totally odd. So is this [90]
- I feel like Alice down the rabbit hole. --Zeraeph (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest that you continue to seek a third opinion, or for help from some of the other contributors to the article. Has Mattisse previously edited this article? If so, had there been previous discussions about the validity of some of the references? Has there ever been discussions about the sources validity by anyone? If she hasn't previously edited the article then she does need to indicate why she believes consensus is wrong - even though having a fresh editor look at an article is often a benefit it is up to them to prove their viewpoint. It would help if you could get some previous article contributors to look over the exchanges, and see what their reactions are. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- This was her only previous edit om talk (VERY POV, and not in line with available information) [91] which was answered here [92] (not by me). There has never been a dispute about any of the citations. Many were dredged up to establish points others disputed. I originally AGF about the Washington State legislature and just went looking for an alternate without checking it, only to find that it most certainly DID contain the reference, so I restored it, specifying why and she "fact" tagged it AGAIN, to me that is failure to AGF at best and potentially just disruptive. The references she commented out supported the statements they were supposed to support. She only had to check them. But she claimed the links were "503", they were not. --Zeraeph (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm... Firstly, not the model answer... I note from the talkpage header that there is a related project; have you asked there for some assesment of the discussion/edits?
- I had forgotten that Mattisse claims to have qualifications in the field - I will not suggest conflict of interest, but I understand (from only the popular press, I admit) that there are several schools of thought regarding psychopathy. Perhaps she follows a type of thinking not reflected in the article? If she can supply sources for her contentions then it should be included, but I still feel that cited content should not be removed until she can convince others that it is wrong; Saying so aint enough. You really do need to get some counter-counter arguments lined up, and some other voices. Last of all, it doesn't matter if it takes a few days to sort out - it is better to go slowly and surely than to get into revert wars. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I only see WP:COI in the combination between her declared position on talk and her claim to work in the field. Certainly if she can find citations in accord with WP:MEDMOS to support her contentions they must be included, but her pattern has been to insert uncited commentary that reflects on and often distorts existing text. In one instance she inserted a block of uncited speculation followed by a cited comment of no relevance alone [93]. She even wants to remove the disease infobox!--Zeraeph (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- As I said previously, you need to get a few more voices involved in the discussion over content - and to make the case that consensus requires argued change. Until there is a body of opinion that concludes Mattisses changes are incorrect or are otherwise damaging the article then this is a simple content dispute (and between only two parties). Once there is agreement that the pre Mattisse version is the consensus version then any non-consensual changes by her can be reverted as vandalism (no 3RR limitations, and possible sanctions for abuse). Of course, if consensus changes then the sources need to be found and cited... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I only see WP:COI in the combination between her declared position on talk and her claim to work in the field. Certainly if she can find citations in accord with WP:MEDMOS to support her contentions they must be included, but her pattern has been to insert uncited commentary that reflects on and often distorts existing text. In one instance she inserted a block of uncited speculation followed by a cited comment of no relevance alone [93]. She even wants to remove the disease infobox!--Zeraeph (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Your post
Re:[94], As soon as people construed that I explicitly and repeatedly made the appropriate clarification. The rumor persisted anyway despite my efforts to stop it. DurovaCharge! 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I concede that the impression was rebutted swiftly (even if not noted). My point remains that there are good faith reasons why someone may believe that all avenues have been explored and exhausted, and may therefore feel that bringing the matter to a wider public is necessary. Hopefully we are in a process of looking forward to possible scenarios rather than rehashing the recent past. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
AN/I request
Could you please take a look at the frivolous thread that Deeceevoice started on me, two threads above the Brendan one? It started out frivolous, as is indicated by the diffs I posted (DCV only pointed people to talk histories in her "complaint", no diffs). During the discussion, one of her supporters, Jeffpw chose to "out" me as a vanished user. It's there in the thread of the conversation, and has been for many hours. I'd appreciate a quick resolution of both the underlying "complaint" and the serious matter of Jeff revealing me as a vanished user. Mr Which??? 15:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Question on Brendan
I dipped my toe into this one after what I thought was a less-than-stellar block of Brendan for "outing" a guy who had made no secret of his identity right up until the point that Brendan supposedly "outed" him. I familiarized myself with WP:OUTING, and it talks about the fact that the attempted "outing" doesn't even have to be true (per the recent comments about Brendan's complaint about Shot Into). Just bringing that to your attention. There may actually be a breach of policy in this case. Mr Which??? 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- You should take a quick peek at that policy. IMO, the violation of it by Shot Into was clearer than Brendan's, given that the person "outed" by Brendan had effectively "outed" himself through links on his userpage, which is explicitly covered in that policy. Mr Which??? 15:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Please refactor
This - please find a more genteel way of expressing the sentiment. My heart's with you, but we should be setting the example. DurovaCharge! 16:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. Zero tolerance for racist agendas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- No personal attacks is a policy, and not an optional one. Please reword that comment in a more civil fashion. Refraining from personal attacks is not tantamount to tolerating someone. 1 != 2 17:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- see Talk:Blair Peach. Any sanction against me in respect of my personal position regarding racists will be regarded as a badge of honour (and I hold no ill-will against anyone who exercises such sanctions, as I take the consequences of my actions). I don't abandon principles. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I discovered long ago that I have more success combatting bigotry by politely showing people a side of things they might not have considered before. Anger breeds anger; vulgarity breeds vulgarity. Sometimes I stand up and draw the line. It carries more clout to do so in a dignified manner. DurovaCharge! 01:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Help requested...
I accidentally created a category page (Category:Category:Christmas number-one singles) while trying to edit the page without the double "Category:Category:" prefix. Can you delete it for me? If not, do I have to propose it for deletion as page/category created by mistake? Thanks for any help/advice you can offer... John Cardinal (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help! Regarding your comment about some situations you couldn't help with, I still felt I had a friend in the business! <g> — John Cardinal (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Block
Yeah, accidentally used block3 instead of block1, fixed already :) BLACKKITE 16:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
British vs US spelling
You "corrected" the word grey to gray on the site about Rose and Malone. This is standard British spelling and is acceptable - especially on a page about a UK subject. Thank you.Daisyabigael (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
First Warning re Moneybomb
Thank you for the advice and warning. I will do as you ask, but calling some one "biased" is not very inflamitory. I have been trying to communicate with "HelloAnnoying" but he seems to be a "know-it-all" as soon as I post within seconds (30-60 sec.) he deletes them (sometimes before I have time to edit). I have tried to talk to him on his page. However when I post an on topic factual information all referenced, I do not expect him to troll. Nor I do not expect a personal vendetta either. --Duchamps comb (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Duchamps_comb
Wrong range
FYI, I left a comment at WP:ANI#Requesting 2 range blocks about the range block being incorrect. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Unblock
Thanks for unblocking Ceoil. We need him badly over the next day or two because he is doing the final adjustments before sending Las Meninas to FAC so that he can respond to reviews over the holidays. It would not have served Wikipedia's interests to have him banned from editing during the present 48 hours. qp10qp (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Seconded! Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- I just enacted the consensus, and was only one voice among many there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if you misunderstood my point
But your own edit summary is much like mine. And what I can see of yours is really excellent work. Merry Christmas!SBHarris 01:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Chrissy Card(s)
RfA thanks
|
|
Great success! Thank you for supporting my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 53-3-2. Special thanks goes to Shalom for both the suggestion and the nomination. I'm honored by the trust that the community has shown in me, and will do my very best as an administrator. Thanks again! faithless (speak) 08:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
Ban of user User:88.248.17.92
Any chance you want to make this 1 week or even more? It seems like a SPA...--CastAStone//(talk) 15:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- And maybe protect the talk page[95]?--CastAStone//(talk) 15:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Assassination article protection
There have been some questions on Talk:Benazir Bhutto assassination as to why the article was semi-protected and if the semi-protection is really needed. -- tariqabjotu 15:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi LessHeard, I've been contributing to this argument on the article talk page and on the admin noticeboard. Could you please unprotect the article and see how it goes for a while. Thanks. 86.31.35.135 (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Report at AIV
Ok, thanks for notifying me. I wasn't looking for any indefinite ban or anything of that sort, its just frustrating reverting and trying to communicate with a user that doesn't respond. I posted the similar report on ANI but a user requested i try SSP or AIV, either way, it looks like the user has stopped for now. If he continues to vandalize the page I'll just file a report at SSP. Thanks again. Happy holiday! -- LaNicoya •Talk• 23:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you
For this. DurovaCharge! 01:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Dear LessHeard vanU, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).
Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.
Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E talk 12:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I had to report User talk:Zeraeph to the 3_RRR today as within approximately two hours after her 28 day block was completed, she made 19 edits to Psychopathy, removing and rearranging my reference citations, refusing to discuss on the article talk page, removing my wording with edit summaries stating that I am wrong, incorrect information etc. and that she will get citations later. Is there another way of dealing with a person like this? She is making major use of material I wrote and distorting it to fit her goals. Her view is that this is her article and only edits she permits are allowed. Please advise. Regards, Mattisse 22:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- But what should I do? Helpful comments have been left on her page many times. In fact, you among many, told her to discuss and get consensus. She is refusing to discuss at all. Does this mean I cannot edit the article because it is hers? Since the 28 block had no effect, and since that block was just one of many in the past, will I never be allowed to edit the article? I am too scared to edit the article myself, as are other editors. Everyone I contacted said the best advice was to never edit the same articles she does. It seems hopeless. Regards, Mattisse 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, my 3-RRR request was denied because it was "malformed". I do not know what "malformed" is so I give up. There is no help here. I may try another admin - hope you don't think I am admin shopping, but this is so depressing and I feel so helpless. Mattisse 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer but it is in such a mess right now it is hardly worth it. I am not going to take the time and effort to bother with that article again. It was foolish of me. This is why I no longer do anything but write my own articles. Getting involved with this one was an exception and proves again why not to edit other articles. I had Barnstars galore (if you look on my userpage) for copy editing and got several articles to FA. But no longer is my goal to help Wikipedia as this sort of thing over Psychopathy is the inevitable result. I will stay away from Psychopathy, as I have been warned by other editors to do, and write my own articles.
- Well, my 3-RRR request was denied because it was "malformed". I do not know what "malformed" is so I give up. There is no help here. I may try another admin - hope you don't think I am admin shopping, but this is so depressing and I feel so helpless. Mattisse 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Could you explain what "malformed" means? How do I submit one that is not malformed? Sincerely, Mattisse 23:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I gave diffs for 19 edits in 2 hours directly after her 28 day block ended. If that is not enought, then nothing is. Mattisse 23:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Changes made by your friend to Psychopathy today:
- first revert [96] 17.20 December 28
- second revert [97]-Revision as of 17:41, 28 December 2007
- third revert [98]- Revision as of 17:43, 28 December 2007
- fourth revert [99] -Revision as of 17:46, 28 December 2007
- fifth revert [100] - Revision as of 17:47, 28 December 2007
- sixth revert [101] -Revision as of 17:55, 28 December 2007
- seventh revert [102] - Revision as of 17:56, 28 December 2007
- eighth refert [103] - Revision as of 17:58, 28 December 2007
- ninth revert [104] - Revision as of 17:59, 28 December 2007
- 10th revert [105] - Revision as of 18:00, 28 December 2007
- 11th revert [106] - Revision as of 18:07, 28 December 2007
- 12th revert [107] - Revision as of 18:12, 28 December 2007
- 13th revert [108] - Revision as of 18:14, 28 December 2007
- 14 revert [109] - Revision as of 18:16, 28 December 2007
- 15 revert [110] -Revision as of 18:17, 28 December 2007
- 16th revert [111] - Revision as of 18:22, 28 December 2007
- 17th revert [112] - Revision as of 19:17, 28 December 2007
- 16th revert [113] - Revision as of 19:20, 28 December 2007
- 17th revert [114] - Revision as of 19:22, 28 December 2007
- 18th revert [115] - Revision as of 19:26, 28 December 2007
- 19th revert [116] - Current revision (19:43, 28 December 2007)
All this within hours of bein unblocked. Thanks! Mattisse 06:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Your note
Hi, just to let you know that I've left a note on Talk:Psychopathy asking that someone explain the dispute to me, and I'll keep an eye on things there. Thanks for letting me know about it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Have you looked at SV's page - everyone is fed up - please read this
- (copied from Slim Virgins page)
-- User:Zeraeph question --
Since you seem to have developed some repertoire with User:Zeraeph, I was hoping you would help out now. Her 28 day block expired today, and she immediately made 19 contentious edits to Psychopathy, making edit summaries like, "this is wrong", "incorrect", etc. but refusing do discuss on the article talk page, as she says she is right and that is that. I reported her to 3-RRR but it was declined as "malformed". I do not know what that means. Do you have any advice as to how to handle this? Now she is taking information I put in the article and mistaking it, and she is moving citations around in a misleading way. Is it true, as everyone says, that none of her article's can be edited by anyone else? Regards, Mattisse 22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
---same subject ---
It is my understanding (possibly wrong) that you were involved in Zeraeph's unblocking. I have been contacted by Mattisse regarding this matter, and I have left comments with User:Mikkalai here and User:Zareaph here. I have suggested to Mattisse that the article may be protected until Mikkalai (or you?) can get the parties to agree some working conditions. Your advice will hopefully prove useful here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not 'involved', please. SV was the unblocking admin. Why the (possibly wrong)? Are we children. Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Mikkalai has made it clear he is done with Z. [118] Mattisse 00:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Let's see what SV makes of it all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms
Please, am I supposed to be impressed this; I dont brush streets myself, and not that it matters or is anyway relevant. And I impressed that you are 48? My mother is 63. So what, actions speak louder than years. Please take regard of the substance, and the background. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you must think I am a fool. Mattisse 00:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please clarify who you are talking to Mattisse. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am talking to User:LessHeard vanU. Mattisse 00:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please clarify who you are talking to Mattisse. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
why should I care that you wish to involve yourself in discussions between two other parties?
- Well, the thing is that Sandy is a friend, has been for a long while, and has helped me enourmosly during my 'career' here . She was harrassed. For months, on and off site. The account that harrassed her was unblocked. I asked why. I was given bullshit reasons, and told, authoratively I have dealt solicitors, barristers, Queens Counsel, and the like in my professional career and am used to writing in those terms. What the fuck? Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I was explaining why I was using the terminology that I did. Simple. That is how I wrote to members of the legal profession back in the day. That is my personal style in these circumstances. If you don't recognise that you were getting an explanation, in much the same manner in which I was conversing, then I doubt there is any point in continuing this conversation. Re Sandy; she is someone I have previously dealt with, too. Small world. Now fuck off. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Re Sandy; she is someone I have previously dealt with"; Now fuck off? Oh boy, it gets interesting now. So I can cut to the chase now right?? Because I know whats going on here. I was just too much of a gentelman to say it out loud. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Remember this: [119]. watch your lip. So you won't mind if I reply in kind; "Fuck off until you learn not to piss on your neighbours lawn!" LessHeard vanU 17:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC) ??????? Funny how history repeats. Oh boy. Ceoil (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've been alerted to this discussion by a concerned WPian. I want to place on record my concern at the re-activation of an account that has been involved in the harassment and stalking of Sandy (possibly of others too, or is this Zeraeph's single obsession?). I have personally found Z very difficult to deal with—specifically at articles such as Tourette's Syndrome, where on her entry, the discourse rapidly disintegrated into a circular, personal, self-referential fog. It's most distressing for serious WPians. I think that there is ample case for Z to be blocked on a more permanent basis. Tony (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Twern't me that unblocked Zeraeph - that was SlimVirgin. I only unblock the polite type of editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
More info for you to consider - since you are apparently not aware - please read so you know what is happening -- you are just the latest in the forum shopping
Scrunched up into diff to save on talkpage space and eyesight. Posted by User:Mattisse Regards, Mattisse 01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Please enjoy the reading. This has been a long road. Z was given a community wide ban and Jimbo overturned it. If you do not want to wreck my life then do not suggest anything that involves Z. As I said before, I have lost all interest in the accuracy of wikipedia articles. If Z wants to prove herself, why doesn't she submit it as a GA or to FAC? I have had enough bad experience on wikipedia after months of doing copy editing for other people's FA, that my interest is no longer in helping wikipedia be better. The fact that the article Psychopathy is a joke and no one can do anything about it speaks volumes about wikipedia. The end. Mattisse 01:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't need to know the precise details on how this matter has developed. I fully realise that there are issues with editing Psychopathy, and that you and Zeraeph are the protagonists - with other editors/admins involved, too, and that there are other related matters. Please understand that it is not the place of admins to determine who is correct in the matter of the content, only that it has written in accordance with the rules, etc. There is an experienced admin waiting at Talk:Psychopathy to help resolve this situation. Use her good offices. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I spent a day collecting "evidence" and providing my reasoning on the Psychopathy talk page, previous to Z.'s block and also after, So are you saying I should do the whole thing again, just because Z does not respond and SV is "not up to speed"? Perhaps you suggest I spend New Years doing it? (Also, if SV does not understand the scientific method, which seems to be to case, there is no hope.) She appears to want Psych 101A. Regards, Mattisse 13:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Psychopathy etc
Hi, there were some very serious factual errors (not disputes, real errors, like the one about Washington State Legislature, where she referenced the wrong page and insisted, falsely that there was no reference to psychopathy) in the article I just could not leave. She also had references that were used in very misleading ways that I corrected. I don't think I "just removed" anything except unreferenced conjecture and linking text? From ok, the article had been turned into the kind of thing that people use as evidence against Wikipedia. I made no 3RR, nor even close...surely she cannot harass me by making things up like that and get away with it? I wouldn't get away with it (actually I wouldn't try, it isn't in my nature, I'd feel like an idiot if I did that). --Zeraeph (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- User:SlimVirgin has made herself available at Talk:Psychopathy for anyone interested in resolving this matter. Best if comments were directed there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
And lets not forget the bullshit posted on WR
lets not forget Ceoil (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Any particular bullshit, you being an expert presumably. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Please read - as the latest forum shopped
Please do try to find out a little of the past history. You were the one that sent Z a "feel good" note that resulted in her most recent block because she paid not one wit of attention to your note. You gave her the "feel good" note but there was no follow through from you. You just left me out there to rot in hell. You told her that she could not remove cited material. She continued to remove cited material. Your reaction: ZERO. [120]
If you can believe one ounce of what Z says, then she is all yours. Happy Holidays! Mattisse 01:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mattisse, can you contain you posts to diffs, it would be a shame if the thrust of the argument was drowned by month old agruments. Please revert the above with diffs. Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC):
- You are kidding. I have no interest in the accuracy of any article on wikipedia anymore, and I am not going to waste my time as others have. The best advice is not to edit articles that Z owns. Please read below, just a sample of my collection.
redacted - already posted a section or so above
Per header. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The Rest
I don't think I'll live long enough to correct all the factual errors in the above! But where the name of someone I respect has been taken in vain I feel I must. I have never been given a "community wide ban" and Jimbo has never overturned any such thing. All he did reverse was a 3RR that was not technically accurate.
In addition, I doubt if the two citations I restored (one my error, one not), were particularly "controversial" edits, nor the spelling error I picked up, and I cannot see how moving text to (blatantly) more relevant sections could be particularly "controversial" either, nor, I am afraid, was altering (and citing) one piece of text that was in clear factual error. I discussed what User:Mattisse wished to discuss on the talk page, and said all I had to say about it, then I went to bed. --Zeraeph (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I contacted you because you sent Z such a sweet little note even though she has disregarded all your advice - you enabled her to be bad
And so you shall continue. I thought maybe you had learned something, but no. Mattisse 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The Actual Changes made to Psychopathy today
Here are the actual changes I made in total, as you will see, very little of anything has been removed from the article. [121] here is one interim change made by User:Mattisse [122] and here is another [123] --Zeraeph (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Warning
As i have just commented an ANB [124] if you address obscenities to other editors, i will block you. DGG (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Replied there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Followed up on my talk page. DGG (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I also came here to remind you of the civility policy. LessHeardVanU, I have always had a lot of respect for you as editor and admin. Your behavior on this page and the AN discussion has really surprised and disappointed me. Please strike and modify your comments. Jeffpw (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- This gets a little difficult, because I did write it and mean it at that time. To strike/modify is to alter the fact after the event, but the fact remains. I am unable to accede to these requests, and if there are consequences so beit. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I also came here to remind you of the civility policy. LessHeardVanU, I have always had a lot of respect for you as editor and admin. Your behavior on this page and the AN discussion has really surprised and disappointed me. Please strike and modify your comments. Jeffpw (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Blueboar - knew there was a reason not to trust you
You allowed me to be personally attached for over week through the "mediation" you set up. How can you set up a medation with a person who deletes their talk pages every day. That really facilitates communication.
Now you come up with this great idea of Slim Virgin and your little favorite, User:Zeraeph. Everyone seems to feel that is an exceedingly bad ideal. Perhaps you should retire for a while - a wikibreak to get some brains together for youself. Just trying to help! And to prevent you from causing any more messes. Meant as a kindly suggestion -- but there would have been so much less disruption today if you had stayed out of it. And you accomplished absolutely NOTHING constructive. Mattisse 06:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- So you've taken it upon yourself to ignore the discussion page, ignore the fact that the article is obviously written by the subject. A player who has made absolutely no impression on the game at all?????????? Paste (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This Day
Less, I do not honestly think that anything I did (short of dying, and even that might not have worked) would have averted this.
I won't be backing out of anything given the chance. Whether you can believe this or not, I have honestly tried everything else, there are only two alternatives, to go on in this miserable situation here (and I truly do not think I can, I am in a terrible state over all this) or to retire out of Wikipedia. I would hope that an RfAr would be more structured. All I want to achieve is a situation where SandyGeorgia stays away from me (directly and indirectly) and I can just stay away from her. The minute she leaves me alone she doesn't matter to me. That is all I want. To be left in peace to edit here on equal terms with anyone else. --Zeraeph (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Request for arbitration
I have filed a request for arbitration where you are an involved party. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and add a statement if you wish. Jehochman Talk 17:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am rather surprised (and pleased) that you and SlimVirgin have supported this arbitration. Thank you. Nobody should fear scrutiny of their behavior. Jehochman Talk 21:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Problem
Admins aren't supposed to know about the subject, they try and apply Wikipedia rules, policies and guidelines to disputes...'
- That may be the accepted Wikipedia mantra, but it isn't true. You can't apply policies and guidelines to a dispute unless you understand the basis of the conflict, which is intimately and inextricably connected to the topic. It sounds great in theory to claim that one can dispassionately distance themselves from any knowledge of a topic and make an accurate decision about a topical dispute, but in practice it is impossible. This is precisely why a growing number of scientists with Ph.D's are seeking law degrees in the hot field of intellectual property. —Viriditas | Talk 11:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I do not fully agree with your interpretation as it turns on the interpretation of know. I do not know what the current status of the term psychopathy is, but I can recognise a content dispute simply by the type of editing/reverting and the comments of the protagonists in respect of the article. The application of policy, etc, can be made on that basis. The editor concerned however dismisses such consideration as being invalid on the basis that a sound understanding of the subject would support her interpretation and thus her edits. If true, then the admin becomes part of the content dispute (on one side or the other depending on their understanding of the subject) - possibly being useful in improving the article but worse than worthless in applying WP policy fairly. I would comment that the other editor in the related dispute is also adamant that their interpretation is 'the truth', so "knowledge" is surely subjective anyway?
- Distance from a subject, or lack of detailed knowledge, is therefore beneficial; it is not coincidence that admins are reminded to recuse themselves from using the mop in areas in which they have involvement - in case of unconscious bias. I work from the Oscar Wilde dictum; "... never read a book before reviewing; it does prejudice one so!" ;~) Seriously, a review of the diffs, editing history, and any talk comments should give an indication of the nature of the dispute (or vandalism, depending on the complaint). A review of the content may also help determine that the disputants are being disruptive or not in their editing clash.
- I would also suggest that Wikipedia's mantra of 'Verifiability over Truth' also questions the assumption of knowledge in being able to determine the validity of a content dispute. Removing cited text on the basis that it is incorrect, replacing it with correct content without sources, refusing to talk about the changes other than to say "I am right" and reverting any change back to the cited information on that basis is disruptive - no matter if the person so acting is indeed correct. Even if an admin was aware that the disruptive editor had the facts on their side (and might even be able to supply the references) it should form no part in their dealing with the disruptive behaviour of the knowledgeable editor. Sysopping, in my view, is the process of aiding the contributors of content, and not making judgement calls on the content contributed regarding accuracy.
- Notwithstanding all or any of the above, I am very pleased that an
admineditor of your standing has involved themself in this matter. I would be pleased to explain myself or any point raised above. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)- I am not an admin nor an "admin of standing", nor do I need to be one to recognize that a decision made out of ignorance is still ignorant. —Viriditas | Talk 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ummm... okay, I've seen you around making some sound calls, then. Shame the respect doesn't go both ways. Perhaps you might consider going for admin (I think I would support) and find out how working the mop is different from theory.
- I would also suggest you consider that if some expressions are considered mantra's, then there is a lot of experience that backs it up. There are a thousand active sysops on en-Wiki expected to assist tens or hundreds of thousand contributors; no admin can take the time to completely familiarise themselves with a subject for every time they are asked to help. Since the rules, policies, and guidelines are not subject specific (except BLP and a very few others) then it is knowledge of the rules etc. that are applied to the article editing - not judgements on content. Content disputes are directed to other forms of resolution that includes the entire community (i.e. some of whom may have the relevent knowledge) which may also include admins. That is the split between knowledge of WP processes (sysops) and knowledge of content (the volunteer community).LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, most Wikipedians are intelligent enough to realize that we do not need rules, policies or guidelines to justify our edits. These things exist for three reasons: to reflect the best practices of the community in a standardized form; to help newcomers adjust to conventions to make the experience as easy as possible; and to reign in those who would wish to harm the community. Unfortunately, within the last several years these policies and guidelines have been used by a small group of active editors and administrators to increase their power and to stamp out change and innovation -- and to allow the rules-makers to become rules-breakers. This was not the original intent of such rules, and this situation is slowly destroying the site. The rules were not intended to be written in stone; they were meant to be broken- on a daily basis - because this site is a work in progress developed by peers who experiment within the general framework of ethical editing. The rules were not created to support a centralized, bureaucratic institution run by power-mad despots who have no knowledge or experience regarding the topics that they edit - which is what it has become. —Viriditas | Talk 09:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Beautiful! You hit the nail on the head. Don't mind me, I saw this insightful post and felt compelled to nod in agreement! I fear the slide toward mindless bureaucracy is killing this project. --MPerel 10:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Instead of rules we need paths - multiple paths, to go from point A to B. This is similar to a rule but provides for greater flexibility and growth depending on a) who is following the path (reader, editor, admin, etc.); and b) the destination (research, FA-Class, adding content, deletions, disputes, etc.) As for bureaucracy, we need sunshine at every level, outside expert panels that make recommendations, and term limits for administrators. —Viriditas | Talk 11:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Which is fine... except sysops rarely act pro-actively; I am a reactive admin, I respond to requests for help. To ensure that I treat all requests fairly I apply the same rules to each, which are the rules, policies and guidelines created by the community. If the community wanted a more organic and intuitive method of resolving problems then the rules would be written accordingly. As it is, it is the community that generates the requirement for admins, and the community that demands a base for all admins to apply their remedies against.
- Fixed term adminships? Interesting proposal (that would be Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) you'll be wanting) with one or two flaws I can see - but then I would say that and I don't suppose you are that interested in my self-interest arguments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think if you look at the article statistics, you will find that admins generate the requirements for admins, not the community at large. Same is true for policies. When the average editor tries to edit a policy or major guideline, they are inevitably reverted on the spot by a bevy of administrators. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? —Viriditas | Talk 23:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Who indeed? It was my experience that when Jimbo attempted to formulate a credential verification policy that it was the community (with major sysop participation, although I was then an editor only just dipping my toes in wiki-gnoming) that ultimately defeated it; which both indicates that inertia has its own dynamics, and that even the Commander in Chief of the Guards can be held accountable to the community. There is a major problem with drastically amending the policies and guidelines is that the only "set in stone" principles are the Five Pillars - one of which is consensus. Once a policy is established then there has to be a majority view that any change will improve it - something that WP:BOLD doesn't have much chance against. The only mechanism for trying to change policy is the discussion document, where a change is discussed and a body of opinion formulated which can then be applied at the policy page. However, WP does change incremently and it is through the application of policy that it is most apparent, which is mostly through the medium of admins. For instance, this discussion is likely to inform my decisions in the future; possibly not even close to a degree that you might consider satisfactory, but your input will have some influence. I am at a loss to suggest any other methods by which change can made on-Wiki. There are obviously some off-Wiki forums which appear to have a disproportionate influence on the community, and one of those has a section where the actions of (certain) admins are... er... "discussed with prejudice". However, the resistance to the input generated at such places doesn't allow for them to be used as an agent of change within WP (and possibly will not please the denizens of those sites either). Perhaps there is a case for a "non admins" noticeboard on wiki, where the considerations pertinent to the contributors only can be discussed? Um... do you want to set up the discussion page? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I support the enforcement of the credential verification policy whenever an editor claims to have a degree as part of an argument from authority in an article, policy, or guideline discussion, or in their user space. I don't make any claims about my personal and private life for that reason, as I would expect someone to check up on me (and people have off-wiki). In one sense, we need to stop pretending this is a MMORPG; it seems that some editors are only here to cause trouble, and enjoy dissecting editorial contributions, much like a child tears the wings off of a fly. But we could approach this site as a professional MMORPG, and improve the site in the process. As previous controversies have demonstrated, this site can affect the lives of real people and we must keep that in mind. A non-admins noticeboard is equivalent to a short bus, and I find it offensive. I see in your edit summary that you even offered to turn this into an essay, which I find insulting. One day, someone is going to collate all of the essays and ram them up the collective ass of Wikipedia as an enema. They are after all, the true policies and guidelines, based on direct editorial experience. Nothing else matters. —Viriditas | Talk 10:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe in "no appeals to authority" as regards content disputes - either the sources support the text or they don't. As for MMORPG, I have never had the slightest interest in such stuff and have little appreciation of the mindsets and role-playing that is required. What you get here from me is a more studied, formalised and sanitised version of me away from the pc - for good or bad. As such I am fully aware that the other person on the other side of the screen is just that, a real thing that continues existing even after the screen goes dark.
- Which brings me to us. I obviously am failing to communicate my good faith, and am saddened that you find my suggestions and comments offensive and insulting. I can only think it must be culture derived (since I was unfamiliar with the concept of Short Bus, and cannot think of an UK analogy even though I now understand what you are saying - a poor(ly regarded) relation) as much as our fundamental differences on the place of policy and the admins that apply it. Rather than risk acerbating the situation I am now going to finish my part of this discussion. If you wish a final word or thought in this then please be my guest. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I support the enforcement of the credential verification policy whenever an editor claims to have a degree as part of an argument from authority in an article, policy, or guideline discussion, or in their user space. I don't make any claims about my personal and private life for that reason, as I would expect someone to check up on me (and people have off-wiki). In one sense, we need to stop pretending this is a MMORPG; it seems that some editors are only here to cause trouble, and enjoy dissecting editorial contributions, much like a child tears the wings off of a fly. But we could approach this site as a professional MMORPG, and improve the site in the process. As previous controversies have demonstrated, this site can affect the lives of real people and we must keep that in mind. A non-admins noticeboard is equivalent to a short bus, and I find it offensive. I see in your edit summary that you even offered to turn this into an essay, which I find insulting. One day, someone is going to collate all of the essays and ram them up the collective ass of Wikipedia as an enema. They are after all, the true policies and guidelines, based on direct editorial experience. Nothing else matters. —Viriditas | Talk 10:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Who indeed? It was my experience that when Jimbo attempted to formulate a credential verification policy that it was the community (with major sysop participation, although I was then an editor only just dipping my toes in wiki-gnoming) that ultimately defeated it; which both indicates that inertia has its own dynamics, and that even the Commander in Chief of the Guards can be held accountable to the community. There is a major problem with drastically amending the policies and guidelines is that the only "set in stone" principles are the Five Pillars - one of which is consensus. Once a policy is established then there has to be a majority view that any change will improve it - something that WP:BOLD doesn't have much chance against. The only mechanism for trying to change policy is the discussion document, where a change is discussed and a body of opinion formulated which can then be applied at the policy page. However, WP does change incremently and it is through the application of policy that it is most apparent, which is mostly through the medium of admins. For instance, this discussion is likely to inform my decisions in the future; possibly not even close to a degree that you might consider satisfactory, but your input will have some influence. I am at a loss to suggest any other methods by which change can made on-Wiki. There are obviously some off-Wiki forums which appear to have a disproportionate influence on the community, and one of those has a section where the actions of (certain) admins are... er... "discussed with prejudice". However, the resistance to the input generated at such places doesn't allow for them to be used as an agent of change within WP (and possibly will not please the denizens of those sites either). Perhaps there is a case for a "non admins" noticeboard on wiki, where the considerations pertinent to the contributors only can be discussed? Um... do you want to set up the discussion page? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think if you look at the article statistics, you will find that admins generate the requirements for admins, not the community at large. Same is true for policies. When the average editor tries to edit a policy or major guideline, they are inevitably reverted on the spot by a bevy of administrators. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? —Viriditas | Talk 23:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Instead of rules we need paths - multiple paths, to go from point A to B. This is similar to a rule but provides for greater flexibility and growth depending on a) who is following the path (reader, editor, admin, etc.); and b) the destination (research, FA-Class, adding content, deletions, disputes, etc.) As for bureaucracy, we need sunshine at every level, outside expert panels that make recommendations, and term limits for administrators. —Viriditas | Talk 11:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Beautiful! You hit the nail on the head. Don't mind me, I saw this insightful post and felt compelled to nod in agreement! I fear the slide toward mindless bureaucracy is killing this project. --MPerel 10:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- With all due respect, most Wikipedians are intelligent enough to realize that we do not need rules, policies or guidelines to justify our edits. These things exist for three reasons: to reflect the best practices of the community in a standardized form; to help newcomers adjust to conventions to make the experience as easy as possible; and to reign in those who would wish to harm the community. Unfortunately, within the last several years these policies and guidelines have been used by a small group of active editors and administrators to increase their power and to stamp out change and innovation -- and to allow the rules-makers to become rules-breakers. This was not the original intent of such rules, and this situation is slowly destroying the site. The rules were not intended to be written in stone; they were meant to be broken- on a daily basis - because this site is a work in progress developed by peers who experiment within the general framework of ethical editing. The rules were not created to support a centralized, bureaucratic institution run by power-mad despots who have no knowledge or experience regarding the topics that they edit - which is what it has become. —Viriditas | Talk 09:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am not an admin nor an "admin of standing", nor do I need to be one to recognize that a decision made out of ignorance is still ignorant. —Viriditas | Talk 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
re User:Philippe block of User:Victor64 and subsequent discussions
I noted a discussion relating to the above at ANI here. After a review I found the block sound, and the language in the summary appropriate. My full reasoning is at the above link. I fail to understand your rationale for contesting either, nor arguing the requirement of an undertaking to cease disruption as a pre-requisite for unblocking - especially since the blockee has made no visible attempt to engage in discussion. Also, I would comment that I find the text of this unacceptable, and I am concerned that a long standing editor would accuse another of lies. I consider this a personal attack and am giving you an official first warning for violation of the policy. Please moderate your terminology in future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have now read the comments in the section a couple of places above. Notwithstanding, I still find your actions inappropriate. Replacing swathes of content with "This is retarded" is beyond a test, and was properly treated as such. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Personal attack? What on earth are you talking about? User:Philippe noted that the Victor64 account is a vandalism-only account. As less than half of the edits made by this user were vandalism, then by definition this wasn't a vandalism-only account. User:Philippe was made aware of this, but didn't retract what he said. He is lying, and knowingly. How is me simply observing the reality of the situation a personal attack? Surely if anyone is making a personal attack, it is User:Philippe Nfitz (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The reviewer was in error, it was not a cooling down block. It was a 24 hour block for violation of WP:NPA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for correcting me; I was indeed wrong to call it a 'cooling off block' rather than a preventative block, which is what it was. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have no idea why you were blocked, and yet independant observers confirmed that it was correctly applied with an appropriate tariff then you should perhaps consider that you are in error in your understanding of some basic WP policies. I would draw your attention specifically to Wikipedia:CIVIL#Examples, and to the last two examples in the first section. To term anothers statements as lies and them thus to be liars is a clear breach of that policy. I warned you, again specifically, that the terminology used was inappropriate. I suggested that you were permitted to make your points civilly. However, you chose to argue your understanding of "truth" and the freedom of speech - notwithstanding that this is a private website and that you were being informed of the rules governing conduct here.
When you, in your incorrect understanding of how things are around here, not only repeated the unsavoury language but attempted to justify how you were correct, the community wrong, and that deference should be made to your viewpoint I enacted a 1 day block. The reason was so that the effect of your disruption would be diminished. Instead of reviewing your actions, or apologising in the interests of future understanding, you continued to pursue your campaign of attempting to have the community accommodate your viewpoint - contrary to principles and practice. Thus your unblock requests were denied.
As well as WP:CIVIL, I think you should also study WP:NPA and WP:Etiquette before pursuing any remedies you think you are due. I think you will find that the codes of conduct expected here are higher than found in most of society. It is because WP is such a large community of such disparity that it can be easy to forget that the individual behind a different screen name may not share your views as to what is appropriate, or not. If everyone tries to be civil then the chance of offending someone is lessened. Obviously, sometimes incivility happens and admins - experienced editors who are familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and who are tasked in allowing the community to function in builing the encyclopedia - will take action. Under the circumstances I was that admin. I gave you the warning, specified the problem, commented how you might redirect your assertions, and when you failed to heed the advice enacted a short block to stop the continuing policy violations.
I really hope that you take the time to read the linked policies, consider my comments, and see how your insistence in behaving in a manner inconsistent with the ethos of Wikipedia lead to the actions taken. I am surprised that someone who has edited for as long as you are not more familiar with how things are, but I am willing to answer any questions you may have regarding the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have read these policies. And as far as I can tell, I have followed them. All my communication was perfectly civil. You say that the policy says I can't point out when people tell lies. But I don't see that in the policy. The only thing the policy says is that one must not tell lies. This is pretty black and white. Phillipe clearly, knowingly and with repitition, made a statement of fact that was not true. The English-language word for such a thing is a lie. Comment that someone is lying is no more being uncivil, than noting that a bus is late. It is merely a statement of fact. Saying someone is a dirty liar, a cheating liar, etc., in uncivil. There is nothing in anything I wrote that is not civil, and didn't meet. The policy says nothing about identifying lies. And I never called anyone a liar - I said they were lying - that is two completely different things.
- The root problem here, is that we have an Admin who did a lie. By your read of the documents, I'm just not allowed to point this out. That makes no sense at all, and therefore can not be the correct interpretation. It's not like I was running around Wikipedia trashing him, left, right and centre. I followed the dispute procedures, slowly and civily. First I discussed it politely with him on his talk page, to try and resolve. Then, I was preparing to go to WP:ANI. For some reason he went there first, so I followed, and simply made my case. However as the whole root of the case, was a lie he made, I had to point it out. What else is one to do? Nfitz (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I note that you were absent between 12 - 19 March, while I was on wikibreak over the Easter holidays. Even if I were inclined (see follows) there was little opportunity for communication. That said, I have no interest in further attempting to explain how Wikipedia works; I have told you how you acted inappropriately (and how the original block was appropriate) and you appear determined not to concede that your values or understandings are subrogated on this website to the rules that have been created here. You are unprepared to consider that your misunderstandings of how the rules are applied and explained by individual volunteers do not constitute "lies" and that the very term lie is one that is severely frowned upon within this community. You appear incapable of understanding these simple comments, and continue to use this insulting terminology in further comments. It does you and any point you are attempting to make no favours when you act as if the site hosts and those who try and police have no jurisdiction over your actions.
- By all means take this to WP:ANI (the Arbitration Committee tend to require that some form of dispute resolution is attempted before they will consider taking a case) if you wish. I doubt that you will get any better a response than when appealing your block, since you do not seem to want to understand the rules, policies and guidelines that govern this place - and through which all your complaints have been appropriately dealt with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- After I was blocked, and my talk page was locked, I used the contact e-mail to challenge the block. The response I got from an admin that, was Personally, I don't think the block against you was valid either, and it's rather depressing to see how many admins refused your unblock request. I would have unblocked you early, but I guess it took more than 24 hours to dig deep enough into this to figure out what happened. So as far as I can conclude, I didn't act inappropriately. Also I'm not sure your post above is civil itself. I request you reread it and apply to yourself, the standards you ask others to follow. While I might well take your post today to ANI, for uncivility, I've been lead to believe that the next step in itself in your erroneous block of me is dispute resolution - before leading to arbitration - though I would accept an apology and simply ending this. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
LessHeard vanU's invalid block of nfitz
I note that you archived the discussion about this with the edit summary "archiving per WP:DENY". Can you explain what that means? I don't see anything about archiving in WP:DENY. And WP:DENY is about vandalism - as no one has ever accused me of vandalism in my 4 years here, then I'm not what you are implying? Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm just looking for an explanation of your thoughts here. I'm just not understanding. Obviously I'm not a troll - any suggestion that someone who has been editing here for 4 years is a troll simply because they agree with other Admins, rather than you, would be most uncivil. Nfitz (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- You have already received my thoughts, per the above. I have no intention of re-iterating them. I shall continue to archive further comments by you to my talkpage, but will in future make no other summary other than that I am archiving. Please use any other venue available to you if you wish to pursue this matter, but I have said all I care to to you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay - though I think I'm required to have a dialogue with you before proceeding to other venues. However, the system confuses me. As an Admin, perhaps you can tell me what the process I should follow when an Administrator blocks someone without cause, and then implies they are a vandal and a troll without any evidence when they try to figure out why they were blocked? Nfitz (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- (the above was archived out of sequence (not sequins) ***********************
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
See
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence#Response_to_User:LessHeard_vanU_evidence_request. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Clarification
SlimVirgin had no duty to consider the effect on a party who had brought up the matter in the first instance, in relation to the edit war.
- Hi. I do not understand what this means. Can you explain it to me? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 03:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- In context, when reviewing a block and its circumstances the consideration of the effects of unblocking to any party that did not form part of the reason given for the block is irrelevent. Specifically, Zeraeph was blocked for editwarring with Mattisse on Psychopathy - the dispute with SandyGeorgia had formed no part of that decision. As it was, SandyGeorgia was the party which bought the matter of the relationship between her and Zeraeph into the content dispute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Addendum, this may or may not have been SlimVirgins reason for unblocking - she comments only on the vandalism on Zeraeph's talkpage - but is my response to accusations that unblocking Zeraeph re-opened the opportunity for attacks on SandyGeorgia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still not following your seemingly evasive language. Forgive me, but I have a penchant for clear, unambiguous speech. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. BTW, I have sent you an e-mail with diffs concerning your last request. —Viriditas | Talk 10:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for sending the diffs; I will respond when I have had an opportunity to study them.
- I'm sorry that people have difficulty in understanding my language, so I will try to be clearer by using an example - if my sysop privileges were removed for a period because of poor decisions relating to this case, the effect on another editor who is vandaling articles which I have been previously patrolling should have no bearing on the decision to return the mop to me. Simply, Zeraeph was not blocked for abusing SandyGeorgia - which in this matter occurred after the block was imposed, following a post by SandyGeorgia - but for edit warring. The decision to reverse the edit-warring sanction need not consider the different, if not unrelated, matters that subsequently arose.
- I'm afraid that this is the best I can do to explain myself. If you are still having problems with my prose I would respectfully suggest you have someone else look over my responses and see if they can explain my position better. I do not wish to repeat the misunderstandings that became apparent in our last discussion. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- How does that address (13)? You're changing the subject. To bring you back on track, the subject of (13) is the bottom of User_talk:Zeraeph/Archive3, especially all the content above SlimVirgin's section titled "Various", where she lifts the unblock, claiming "I don't know what this is about". Clearly, looking up at the previous sections shows an astounding, unbelievable number of personal attacks directed at other editors, including an attack upon an administrator - and an absolute refusal by Zeraeph to acknowledge any responsibility for her actions. If you honestly are telling me that an unblock was justified by SlimVirgin at 11:29, 28 December 2007 based on what you see just hours before, then you are avoiding the issue. Between 07:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC) and 09:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC), Zeraeph wrote:
- I'm still not following your seemingly evasive language. Forgive me, but I have a penchant for clear, unambiguous speech. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. BTW, I have sent you an e-mail with diffs concerning your last request. —Viriditas | Talk 10:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Addendum, this may or may not have been SlimVirgins reason for unblocking - she comments only on the vandalism on Zeraeph's talkpage - but is my response to accusations that unblocking Zeraeph re-opened the opportunity for attacks on SandyGeorgia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- In context, when reviewing a block and its circumstances the consideration of the effects of unblocking to any party that did not form part of the reason given for the block is irrelevent. Specifically, Zeraeph was blocked for editwarring with Mattisse on Psychopathy - the dispute with SandyGeorgia had formed no part of that decision. As it was, SandyGeorgia was the party which bought the matter of the relationship between her and Zeraeph into the content dispute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Mikka, it is my sincerely held belief that you should be de-sysopped for banning me for 28 days at all. The editor breaking the rules and continuing to do so without censure was, in fact User:Mattisse...You blocked me because you are afraid of User:SandyGeorgia and her clique, not because I did anything wrong...User:SandyGeorgia breathing down my neck and hobbling me at every turn, making me a "soft target" for other bullies like User:Psychonaut."
- Now back to the topic: 13) Given that Zeraeph had posted recent and obvious personal attacks on her own user talk, SlimVirgin's unblock of Zeraph was unjustified. At a minimum, the unblocking admin should have investigated plainly visible indications of disruptive behaviour.
- SlimVirgin unblocked Zeraeph at 11:29, 28 December 2007. Why? —Viriditas | Talk 10:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- You will have to ask SlimVirgin those questions. My point is; that the circumstances of the block are the primary considerations for investigating and varying any sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and those circumstances include official policy relating to editors who abuse block appeals: "A minority of editors who are blocked use these privileges poorly, for personal attack or to play games and make a point. Inevitably the response to such actions is simple - editing access is blocked in its entirety and without further discussion, whereas if the user had been responsible and reasonable, an entirely different result might well have happened....Users who are blocked are asked to use this as a chance to reflect, an opportunity to show their understanding and ability to act responsibly, and a period of time to let the matter pass and be learned from." Zeraeph was actively and knowingly engaged in abusing the unblock process, did not use the block to reflect on her behavior or learn from it, used her time to continue making personal attacks on her user page, and visited Wikipedia Review's forum to continue the attacks. After SlimVirgin unblocked, Zeraeph went straight back to disruptive editing and personal attacks onwiki. How did the unblock benefit the community and what did it attempt to achieve based on the in interim period between the block and the unblock? It is the responsibility of the unblocking administrator to be fully cognizant of WP:APPEAL. —Viriditas | Talk 11:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was not the unblocking admin, and I cannot answer for her. I am now aware SlimVirgin did comment that she had been in contact with Zeraeph before deciding to unblock, but I do not know the nature of this discussion. I am also aware that Zeraeph did start to remove some of her comments on her talkpage - but I obviously cannot determine whether she was intending to remove that which related to SandyGeorgia. All that I am aware of is that Zeraeph did not edit her talkpage from 06:18 on 13.12.07, until she was unblocked 13 days later. The attacks had therefore ceased.
- I was unaware that Zeraeph was unblocked until I saw the discussion at WP:ANI - I had not been reviewing the matter since Zeraeph was blocked whilst I was away (sleeping) from WP and my dispute resolution help was no longer needed, I was unaware of the attacks until I saw the ANI thread, I returned to Zeraeph's talkpage to offer my continued assistance - and then to admonish her for her return to edit warring. The debate regarding Zeraeph's unblock was already well under way when I became aware of it. I was uncertain of SlimVirgins position in relation in regard of the unblock - sometimes an admin will use the sysop tools by request when they have had no previous input in a matter, simply enacting consensus - which is why I used such careful language in my initial approach to her. When the communities concerns became apparent I supported the request for Arbitration. I formulated my full understanding of the situation, including Zeraephs poor behaviour after the block, while compiling my evidence.
- Again, please refer any query regarding SlimVirgins reasons to her. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with your comments entirely LH vU, and this is what I said on the arbitration's talk page. That particular block was nothing to do with SandyGeorgia, for her to be warned Z was being unblocked.Merkinsmum 21:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and those circumstances include official policy relating to editors who abuse block appeals: "A minority of editors who are blocked use these privileges poorly, for personal attack or to play games and make a point. Inevitably the response to such actions is simple - editing access is blocked in its entirety and without further discussion, whereas if the user had been responsible and reasonable, an entirely different result might well have happened....Users who are blocked are asked to use this as a chance to reflect, an opportunity to show their understanding and ability to act responsibly, and a period of time to let the matter pass and be learned from." Zeraeph was actively and knowingly engaged in abusing the unblock process, did not use the block to reflect on her behavior or learn from it, used her time to continue making personal attacks on her user page, and visited Wikipedia Review's forum to continue the attacks. After SlimVirgin unblocked, Zeraeph went straight back to disruptive editing and personal attacks onwiki. How did the unblock benefit the community and what did it attempt to achieve based on the in interim period between the block and the unblock? It is the responsibility of the unblocking administrator to be fully cognizant of WP:APPEAL. —Viriditas | Talk 11:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- You will have to ask SlimVirgin those questions. My point is; that the circumstances of the block are the primary considerations for investigating and varying any sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin unblocked Zeraeph at 11:29, 28 December 2007. Why? —Viriditas | Talk 10:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
(Outdent) "The debate regarding Zeraeph's unblock was already well under way when I became aware of it." OK, and the debate was already well underway by the time Sandy posted regarding it. You were aware of it, in fact, before she was. You have written: "SandyGeorgia and her colleagues, however, decided to treat the unblock as a question of permitting an editor responsible for personal attacks to continue that behaviour, and started a discussion at WP:ANI decrying the block and attempting to start the process of a community ban." Sandy did not start the AN/I discussion. That's a plain fact. (And I don't know what "SandyGeorgia and her colleagues" means.) Nor did she or anyone mention a community ban on AN/I when the thread first started; there was no coordination to that end. I urge you to retract or amend the statement. Marskell (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Timeline
FYI... Many of the diffs linked to LHvU timeline have been deleted due to the removal of Zeraeph's talk page, however, the actual comments are still available in her talk archive. —Viriditas | Talk 13:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
uk meet
did you know of Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester_3 ? I appreciate it's quite a way from you, though. Merkinsmum 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I regret having to bother you with this matter again
Mark thanks for your note. For what its worth (and that might'nt be a lot!)I don't think you language was 'extremely offensive', and given the circumanstances and tone of the interaction between us to that point, it was quite restrained. I apologise again for my poor behaviour. Ceoil (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- In the spirit of forgive, forget, thats life, move on, I posted this. I treated you and DGG harshly, there is no question of that and the irony of your presence in my block record from 2 weeks ago isn't lost on me. Is it ironic? Is it all connected? Dunno. Lets move on. Someday maybe we'll have a conversation that does not contain the words 'fuck', 'tard', or 'apology'; but until then, no hard feelings. Ceoil (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you :)
Thanks for blocking that vandal. I'll keep an eye out and make sure to tell you if they do another personal attack again. Regards! FamicomJL (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi i was reading this [125] BBC story about the Lommemeannen and thought it would make a good new wikipage, and checking the deletion log found one had been speeded by you for being and attack article. I have no idea how bad that article was (i did not write it) but could you talk to me about re-creating this article in a way as to avoid it being an attack article. (Hypnosadist) 07:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, yes could you undelete it and remove the last line as well that mentions the supposed name of the lommemannen as that is unsupported by the BBC source i gave you and is a privacy violation (the address) as well. I'm off to bed so i wont be able to work on the article for 12ish hours so use your judgement and i agree with your call of speedying the original article. (Hypnosadist) 14:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Now a proper wikipage, thanks! (Hypnosadist) 00:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The case was renamed upon closing from "Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia" to "Zeraeph". User:Zeraeph, including and socks and future accounts, is banned from Wikipedia for one year. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, your attention is directed to item 1 here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph/Proposed_decision#Discussion_by_Arbitrators. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough; I see FT2 didn't correct the misunderstanding regarding previous incidents, perhaps not seeing my note, but it isn't important.LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply
... on my talk page. Thanks and noted. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- cool LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Just cos
Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I would like to send you an email
But I notice your caveat. You have elsewhere requested information which I'd like to provide, but not if it involves the dissemination of my email, or perhaps my identity. Please indicate here, on my talkpage, or via email if you would consider suspending your disclaimer in this present instance (and any email I receive from you will remain in strict confidence, unless it contemplates murderousness). Thanks. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 01:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I will not divulge your identity or ip address, since that is beyond what Wikipedia allows except in certain situations (by the use of Checkuser re ip addresses - and I do not have that level of trust) and I do not set myself above that. Providing there is nothing in the email that is illegal, or is against the rules and policies of Wikipedia, then there is no reason why I would disseminate the contents. Please be assured that it is not my intention to break confidences as a matter of course, but only that I am permitted to republish any correspondence or part of any correspondence in extreme circumstances where the benefit to the community outweighs the expectation of privacy. I hope the above reassures you sufficiently to contact me. If you require further clarification then please ask. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
redirect / deletion
I've weighed in on your discussion @ User talk:Lar. - Revolving Bugbear 23:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It is inappropriate to include contentious material in biographies of living people... but what I said was on a talk page and the comment was entirely informal. Did you research this matter properly?--EndlessDan 20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- replied at ANI and talkpage.LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your message and help in dealing with the "block evader" (for want of a better expression). I just wanted to check though about User:QPRsteve, will they also be banned as a sockpuppet of User:JackQPR as User:QPRben was too? cheers, ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have indef blocked QPRsteve for sock abuse. I haven't templated the talkpage since it hasn't been previously created. QPRben was previously indef blocked. If there is a special sockblock I missed it, but the result is the same.LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I have a suspicion that User:Youf123 is a new sock puppet of JackQPR's. Jimbo[online] 09:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- ...and another JDT2k8 Jimbo[online] 17:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- ..another Special:Contributions/QPRlLAD Jimbo[online] 12:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- ...two more, User:Jackt123/User:QPRlad, is there a way of permanently banning him - or a lengthy ban? Jimbo[online] 17:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- ..another Special:Contributions/QPRlLAD Jimbo[online] 12:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- ...and another JDT2k8 Jimbo[online] 17:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I have a suspicion that User:Youf123 is a new sock puppet of JackQPR's. Jimbo[online] 09:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
He's back User:Bengio. Still making the same edits as before Jimbo[online] 14:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Hah, I didn't even notice it was you. Nothing personal, I promise. We seem to know all the same people ;)
Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 22:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit summaries
Thanks. I didn't know that option was in the prefs, I've turned it on. I recall reading very long ago minor edits were ok without summaries but these days I'm tending to agree it's more helpful to always use them, so I shall. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Great. I look forward to sharing the mop pail. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Correction?
Woooooooh, am I glad you weren't involved in the recent ArbCom I was a party to! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- What'd I do? - Revolving Bugbear 15:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- re ScienceApologist - I was correctly reprimanded for use of the anglo saxon vernacular. I assume that was SA's violation? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- He has an ArbCom restriction against incivility. I don't have a problem with profanity, but three incidents in one day, including trying to bully another user (who was giving a good-faith warning) off his talk page, is clearly over the line. - Revolving Bugbear 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I told two different editors to f*ck off with a 10 month gap between the two events - the first time was pre-admin - and got reminded on appropriate conduct as part of the findings of a recent ArbCom. Re your actions per SA, I realise that you are simply applying the conditions in a different finding - I was just joshing on our last couple of interactons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- We've all said things that are questionable here -- I'm reminded of a time I said another user was being "disgustingly offensive" ;) And yes, I realize you were just messing around re SA, but I wanted to make sure there was no doubt, since the subject has already come up on AN/I.
- It does seem that we're seeing a lot of each other lately. I shall do my best to make sure you're around for my next major cock-up ;) - Revolving Bugbear 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I told two different editors to f*ck off with a 10 month gap between the two events - the first time was pre-admin - and got reminded on appropriate conduct as part of the findings of a recent ArbCom. Re your actions per SA, I realise that you are simply applying the conditions in a different finding - I was just joshing on our last couple of interactons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- He has an ArbCom restriction against incivility. I don't have a problem with profanity, but three incidents in one day, including trying to bully another user (who was giving a good-faith warning) off his talk page, is clearly over the line. - Revolving Bugbear 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- re ScienceApologist - I was correctly reprimanded for use of the anglo saxon vernacular. I assume that was SA's violation? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Your comments at ANI
I'm glad to see you self reverted but honestly don't you think its a little insensitive to advocated desysopping him?? Talk about kicking while he is down.... Spartaz Humbug! 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm talking about protecting Wikipedia when a user with certain community given powers may be emotionally distressed, and that the removal of the tools is only for that period while these issues may be effecting him. JzG has a history of having his decisions/actions being less than appreciated by sections of the community; disallowing him the potential of seriously compromising his standing while he may be particularly vulnerable might be considered being helpful, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thx
|
Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 60/0/0 yesterday!
I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet). Thanks again, Victuallers (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC) |
 |
|---|
My RfA
I hate to sound like a dick, but could you please reword your question, it's kind of confusing. Cheers, LAX 22:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Have done. A hint; it is regarding Conflict of Interest, and follows your response to Q.1. Cheers, and best wishes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi just wondering if you could have a look again at the above article please? The user JackQPR is paying no attention whatsoever to the block nor the blocks of the various sockpuppets they have created recently since the block and it seems at the moment that every day they are back again with a new username doing exactly the same edit. The latest username being QPRILAD. Is there any chance of the article getting a longer protection from allowing new users and IP users from editing as it does look as though this will not go away and that they are determind to create new usernames. Perhaps they seem to think no-one will notice or that in the end will back down. But as you will see from the edit history it is getting ridiculous now. Two of the sockpuppets, QPRILAD and QPTsteve don't seem to have been blocked as sockpuppets, though the others (including JDT2k8,Youf123 and QPRben have been blocked in the last few days. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi sorry for the second message. However another article I have on my watchlist has been vandalised by what seems to be yet another sockpuppet of JackQPR - User:Ben10023, an old account but exactly the same edit as on the List of hooligans article and surely not a co-incidence that "ben" appears in the username as another sockpuppet is QPRben. I have no idea how to approach all this and would appreciate your help please on the above and this? Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your messages. No surprise really but today there are yet another two new sockpuppet accounts from the same user. Today it is User:Jackt123 and User:QPRlad with exactly the same edits on exactly the same article. The article really could do with being semi-protected ASAP from new and IP users, as a number of other users are now just using the reverting method of dealing with it which is resulting in numerous reverts each day as both the sockpuppet and them get involved in a daily edit war. If you don't mind I would prefer it if you could bring it up at the Admin Noticeboard/Incidents as I am unsure as to how best to word it all so that it is dealt with correctly. Would that be ok with you?
This is a list of all the various accounts that I know of so far (there may well be more). Some of them seem to have been blocked already, others there is nothing noted on their user page. Plus I noticed that on one of the accounts at the bottom of the page it was listed in a "sockpuppets of JackQPR" category. However it was "redlinked" so presumably the page itself doesn't exist yet?
- JackQPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ben10023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- QPRlad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- QPRlLAD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jackt123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- JDT2k8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Youf123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- QPRsteve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- QPRben (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There are probaly more accounts as at least one of them (Ben10023) is an old account from about a year ago which they used and he also edited at least once while logged out as an IP user. Plus he doesn't exactly make any attempt to hide as on the QPRlad userpage he has added"My name is Jack". Thanks. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
That is excellent, thanks for your help. Just a pity it has had to come to this though as the user could have been a useful editor if he had taken on board the advice given to him, but he was/is totally unwilling to communicate at all.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
a thank you note
|
Thanks for participating in my RfA! | |
| Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been wonderful, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
Working in the background
|
The Invisible Barnstar | |
| For being one of the folks who does the scut work without expecting plaudits or groveling, and with respect for those whose path you cross. Risker (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC) |
Well, it seemed to me that you had some good points in your recent self-described "rant" on another editor's (extremely watchlisted) talk page. And let's just say you still have enough of the "editor" in you to treat non-admins with the common touch rather than noblesse oblige. It *is* appreciated. Risker (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Your comment at WP:AN
Thanks for your comment about the "Three Strike" proposal at WP:AN. As a result of your comment, I have created a subpage within my userspace with this proposal on. The page in question can be found here. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear...
You know who's fault that is? Silly WP:HUGGLE... counting the warnings rather than detecting their levels... Sorry about that... I'll shoot through his contribs and see if he does anything else. Cheers for telling me! ScarianCall me Pat 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
My Rfa
My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
User Blaxthos
Rather than having Blaxthos's back and protecting his page from LEGITIMATE constructive criticims to which he has become increasingly inured, why not suspend him for falsely accusing that guy (69.244.181.184 )of being a sockpuppet of Rynort?
Blaxthos guessed. And he guessed wrong. But because YOU and others have enabled him, he has been empowered to ABUSE other editors.
He falsely accused someone of being a sockpuppet of Rynort.
I say put up or shut up.
But Blaxthos can't put up, because the charges are absurd and patently untrue.
Why aren't you holding him accountable?
In the spirit of making wikipedia the BEST online encyclopedia, I respectfully submit that you SUSPEND the POV-pushing Blaxthos for a period of no more than two years and not less than 180 days.
Thanks!
Ps His POV pushing is LEGENDARY. His MO is not particularly cryptic or inventive. Essentially, he locates conservative editors, baits them, then GAMES the system to get them caught in a prosecutable grievance upon which they are threatened with an RfA 68.40.200.77 (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- After reading this, this, and especially this, I must confess to a certain lack of sympathy regarding your concerns with this editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Amythystdragon block
Hi,
I was about to block User:Amythystdragon and you won by seconds. The 31 hours you gave them surprised me, as I see it as a vandalism account. They have only been on for two days and have blanked the same page repeatedly. As a fairly new admin I'd like to hear your rationale for such a short block, so I can add it to my experience for future similar situations. Thx. -- Alexf42 21:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Your Caveat message
I like your Caveat message. Do you mind if I steal it for my Talk page? BTW, you have "to to" repeated in it. -- Alexf42 21:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
New pages list
Thanks for the heads-up. Your workaround pretty much describes the way I actually work (actually, I use tabbed browser pages, but it's the same principle) - I was just hoping that WP had some nifty widget to get round it :-) CultureDrone (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks from Happy-melon
I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. I can't say I do know who you are, and I don't think we've ever bumped into each other before, but your comment and support was very much appreciated. Happy‑melon 10:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry
Thank you, yeah, I understand. Just got a bit tired of Rob picking fights with me. --LN3000 (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Despite your unblock, this user persits in removing speedy delete tags from Men of War. He also has blanked his talk page, in an apparent effort to hide his previous warnings and blocks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I see now that I got ome timestamps flip-flopped. Sorry about that. Time for a trip to the eye doctor, I think. Thanks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Notification of new post in "resolved" ANI thread
I've made a point about custom edit summaries in an ANI thread. See here. Notification left because the thread was previously marked "resolved" (I've removed the resolved label as I felt the issue is not resolved). Comments would be welcomed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
User LessHeard VanU. I am watching Andy for he personally attacked me. I am watching him and not threatening him. I am not harass him nor am i attempting too. If you read my post on the page you post above you will see that I propose that we (andy and I) proceed down the dispute resolution process. I also reply to accusations of being a sub-troll. I do not think this constitutes a threat I think this constitutes a motion to follow the official wikipedia rules to resolve a dispute. If you think posting that i am watching a user and I post a reply and a how-to resolve our differences constitutes harass I think you should reconsider. Otherwise, you are giving users who are in the wrong free rein. Please watch me, for if no one is watching the watchers' we are all in the wrong. Dbmoodb (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC) I would like an answer on my talk page to my query regarding what you believe to be a potential case of harassment. :) thank you. Dbmoodb (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
202.95.200.17
Hi - yeah, I was just looking at today's edits, which actually appeared constructive (though I'm no airline expert). I've no problem with the block if there's a longer term pattern of disruption. Best, Black Kite 12:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Notability of March (band)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on March (band), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because March (band) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting March (band), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. And I have turned on the force edit summary option now, I didn't even know it existed until someone pointed it out to me. Melesse (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
JackQPR
Hi there, remember JackQPR and his numerous accounts on List of hooligan firms? Well he is back again this time as JackT14 (talk · contribs · logs)
with exactly the same edits. He's not exactly subtle or trying to hide himself, but it is presumably yet another sockpuppet of his and I hope you don't mind my informing you and asking if you could deal with it? Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the suggestion - I have shamelessly nicked the box off the top of this page and stuck it on my talk and user pages. DuncanHill (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I.P. with the limited vocabulary
Yeah, a selective restoration would have been appropriate - was that what you were in the process of doing? If so, I'm sorry for interrupting it (although your deletion summary didn't indicate that that's what was going on). I wouldn't object to that revision being deleted now, although I don't particularly think it's necessary, either. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- As I said, I don't think it matters, so I won't. But if you want to, you have my formal blessing (i.e. it won't be WP:WHEEL). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you help at Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_(North_America)#February_11
Can something be done about this? TJ continues to announce what games are coming out, but the information isn't from a reliable source. Also, the information that he posts isn't added to the article for that same reason. So he is basically using the talk page as a way to promote a bad source, as well as making it an announcement board for himself and a few others. These same people are the ones that were posting other off topic comments until recently. They've stopped since the reminder you posted, with the exception of TJ's most recent post. We can wait and see, but I can bet people will chime in with their off topic comments. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you check out the edit history of List of Virtual Console games (North America), you will see two IP editors that used the information that TJ posted. TJ's post on the talk page seems to be encouraging people to add the information as if it was reliable and accurate. In my opinion, if the talk page section wasn't there... IP editors wouldn't be adding the information in. If this continues (next week for example), can the sections made by TJ be stopped finally? The problem is with the talk page, which should be prevented in the first place. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
IRC guidelines
Hi :-) Since the case is closed I will not be commenting on the proposed decision talk for much longer. The topic is important and I plan to start a discussion on Monday about forming a working group to develop some guidelines. Until then feel free to make your thoughts known on my talk page. Have a nice day. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
archive creation on my talk page
could you look at my talk page to see if I made the archive correctly? Abridged talk 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Agent007ravi (single purpose account?)
Agent007ravi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has done quite a number on several Dragon Ball pages; this user went around and disruptively placed unsourced data. Since you've dealt with him/her before, what do you think should be done? Please reply on your talk page. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have indef blocked the account as disruptive. If they undertake to discuss the changes they want, and to provide sources for their different information, then they can be unblocked. Otherwise they are simply creating too much distraction and effort on the part of others. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agent007ravi is requesting to be unblocked. Your comments on his/her talk page would be appreciated. - auburnpilot talk 21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ta. Wilco. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agent007ravi is requesting to be unblocked. Your comments on his/her talk page would be appreciated. - auburnpilot talk 21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I think Twicemost (talk · contribs) is willing to apologize for and retract his threats which led to his indefinite block. Would you be willing to consider shortening it to a week or so? MastCell Talk 19:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just a quick heads-up - Twicemost (talk · contribs) has apologized, promised no further threats, and agreed to abide by WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, etc. I've therefore unblocked him. Thanks for your feedback. MastCell Talk 23:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: your message on Durova's Talk Page
Do you mind if I email you? SirFozzie (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hal Turner
Can you up the protection to full and indef? Seeing as it's a BLP blanking... Will (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Arbcomments
Ah, O.K. I was just thinking that my response was probably unnecessary because -- from what little I've seen -- arbcom doesn't actually ever use language that strong in decisions. (And don't take my style of dashes as an indication of anything!) Noroton (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Emails
You have the date and times of the emails? Neat! Send them over and I'll make a chart ASAP. Cool Hand Luke 02:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Maria215
Hello, Thank you for your suggestions. I've joined wikipedia to help the artist revise his wiki page. The information that is shown presently is what i've been given to post directly. I agree that it much resembles a cv so would you be able to guide me along in fixing it? He wants to keep about all the lists of collections, books, exhibitions and bibliography so is there a way to make it more presentable or do you think some of it is not helpful and not necessary? Any suggestions would be amazing and extremely helpful! Being from an art and design field myself, i'm not going to lie, editing in wikipedia seems almost like a completely different language! Maria215 (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- LessHeard vanU asked me for advice on this: but I can't fault the advice he has already posted. If you are acting directly on behalf of the artist, you need to be especially cautious about conflict of interest issues. And I agree that the "CV" style isn't at all appropriate.
- I recommend raising this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. They do a lot of this type of collaboration on development, and would be able to guide you on what formats are customary. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for both of your suggestions. After going through the Wikipedia tutorial and checking out a number of different artist's pages, I was able to come up with an outline that would satisfy both ends. I'm just now waiting for the material and references to base it on to revise the page. Thanks again. Maria215 (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Synopsis of A Shropshire Lad in Alfred Edward Housman
I would tend to revert any deletion made without a reason being provided, and the IP involved seemed to have a history of unconstructive edits. Even if it was well-intentioned, (s)he shouldn't really have left the "Poetry" section beginning with a section on "Later collections"! However, you're right to point out that the ASL section has problems. The idea that an in-character synopsis of the whole collection can be written in continuous prose seems questionable, and the result feels to me like an original creative response to the poems. I'd have no objection if someone removed the Synopsis or replaced it with something more suitable. EALacey (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I went ahead and pruned the section myself. I hope that's an improvement. EALacey (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi LHvU, I was the author of the offending synopsis. I have read the correspondence between you and EALacey and left him a message, so I leave it for you too. Some of the surrounding material which has since been edited was accumulated from earlier editors and I kept it in in order not to wantonly delete the contributions of others - not worried about that. So far as the Synopsis is concerned, it is not so subjective as you have thought: each sentence or half-sentence corresponds to a poem, in sequence, so that the whole paragraph is a true synopsis of the content of the volume of poems. To say it should be replaced by something more suitable is in fact imposing a subjective judgement - the idea that the whole sequence is 'in character' (as EAL says above) is certainly contained in the title of the whole collection, even if EAL has not thought of that. What I wrote to him is more about the procedure for making changes to it, hence I enclose my comments below:
Hi, I am the author of the Shropshire Lad synopsis. I know that you first reinstated it after an anonymous editor removed it, have thought about whether to delete it, and have acted in good faith. However it would be better, if you think it should go, to follow normal procedure for so large an edit and raise the matter in discussion (and, not with a guillotine deadline in your favour) on the Article Discussion Page. That is the normal procedure for courtesy and good manners between editors in WP, as you, an editor of 2 years standing, probably know. The source for the synopsis is, like any literary work article, the work itself, and the themes are presented in sequence as they appear in the poems. Hence it is quite justifiable as encyclopedic content, and is not Original Research any more than any reading of any literary work. I'm quite happy to discuss this more, and would have been happy before, but I am not happy that you and the guy above have made this major deletion without consulting in the usual way, and preferably contacting me as the contributing editor. So I have reinstated it now give you the opportunity to present your case. Hope we can sort this out, I am here most days and am not unreasonable, Eebahgum (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I should be glad if either of you wished to reply at my user talk. With good wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Malamockq
Re Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Malamockq.2C_User:Asams10.2C_and_Deletion_of_comments_on_discussion_board. I disagree with the block. M has been irritating, but hardly deserves 31h, unless there is some incivility which I've missed. Best to reply at ANI William M. Connolley (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
I've had my fill of vandal fighting for today. Thanks for ridding Wikipedia of one more. Mkdwtalk 10:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Admin recall
Less, your handling of the incident seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Malamockq.2C_User:Asams10.2C_and_Deletion_of_comments_on_discussion_board. was done poorly. I was unfairly banned, and administrator, User:William M. Connolley felt that way as well. You jumped to conclusions, and did not investigate the matter properly. Furthermore, after comments were made that my banning was unfair, you never followed up on those arguments, and merely ignored the incident. I do not feel you are well suited to be an administrator. I am opening the discussion to the recall of you as an admin as per, Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall Malamockq (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As per your comment, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMalamockq&diff=193744409&oldid=193714655 I have added you to the open to recall category. Malamockq (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Then why did you add that comment to my talk page? Malamockq (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
That wasn't my question. I asked you why did you add that comment to my talk page. Malamockq (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Random note
I just wanted to drop by and say hi. Your encouragement to me in the past has had lasting impact; I think about it often, even in such minor things as editing my own user page, and I felt like I ought to let you know. :) Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence
You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.
The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
I've gone ahead and added the confirmed sock. Hope I did that right; the rules have changed over the years! Thanks for the block and thanks for the update. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
re: re Agent007ravi
Had to run an errand so I apologize for not responding sooner. IMHO, I think we're dealing with a disruptive account whose only purpose is to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. He's been given too many warnings, blocks, etc., and shows no sign of a change in behaviour. Thoughts? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I differ in that, per WP:AGF, I believe that the editor is an overkeen contributor with no apparent desire to conform to WP practices - not out of malice but because they don't care to - and who doesn't distinguish between fact and wishful thinking. However, the result is the same - the encyclopedia suffers. I would prefer that Mike Rosoft takes the lead here, as he seems to have at least some communication with the editor, but if Agent007ravi's editing gets too vexatious then take it too AIV noting both the final warning and recent ending of block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Did you see his newest warning? I don't know how to get my point across to this guy. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- You hit the nail on the head. Looks like he's currently edit warring on London Borough of Redbridge. Give a {{3rr}} warning as well? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Did you see his newest warning? I don't know how to get my point across to this guy. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The timeshift
No, alas the Indian timeshift is seen only in MM's edits, since he was the only editor editing at the time (Oct 2006). It is adduced that MM=GW since GW was in India and GW and MM both mention Varkala in different venues. But that's it. The smoking gun (and it is a lesser one) that SH = MM is that they both quit editing nearly completely in Nov. 2007 (really beginning in late Oct), a year latter. Neither has an explanation. If they're not socks, they're joined at the hip and vaccation together. That plus the fact that edit diff comment tics tie SH and MM together without any a priori assumptions, pretty much makes that case. And lastly, MM has socked as LE, so we know he's capable of it. SBHarris 01:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Locke Cole unblock
Hi LessHeard vanU. I notice you blocked Locke Cole (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for this. I think if he were to agree to remove the statement, and to pledge not to do so again, an unblock would be reasonable. Would you be okay with this? I'm happy to speak to LC about it, but not until you indicate it's okay. Thanks. Neıl ☎ 11:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: AIV report
I am not familiar with the Simpsons. I saw what he wrote and thought it was vandalism. When I saw he already had a final warning, I reported him. J.delanoygabsadds 22:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sooo... How do I remove the report? It's already gone. I'm confused. Don't worry: That's a normal condition with me. J.delanoygabsadds 16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
AEH
Thanks for your input. I was getting my retaliation in first, as the Irish say, but you beat me to it, gosh durn it.(!) I'll send a note to EALacey to let him know and we can wax wordsome over the matter. Eebahgum (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- PS, and without offence of any kind intended, I do think it is a little unfair of you to have placed what was written on the footing that anyone at all could delete it without my having any right to come back to reinstate it, overriding the 3rr rule. The original deletion was, after all, done without any discussion except between you and one other editor, when you could easily have brought me in to discuss. And after reinstating it I moved it, under my own steam, to the present article, in order to meet your feelings about its presence in the former. I am not in special need of being disciplined.
- I cannot see that a résumé of the themes of the individual poems really amounts to original research. I have now added specific sources for each, and have lightly edited to remove (largely) the suggestion of continuity. There were no inline references in the A. E. Housman article before I created the reflist and put them in, so I am not a non-referencer (see recent work on Charles Santley, for instance).
- The synopsis is now the only referenced part of the article on A Shropshire Lad. But your threat of sanction now hangs over precisely this part. What about all that quoted poetry in the previous section, and all the really unreferenced material in this article, much of which is verbatim duplication from the A E H article? Sorry to whinge, but this was never a casual edit, and if you change the ground rules then I think (if this is cricket) that you might justify your stance about original research more fully before wielding your administrative whangee - please? Eebahgum (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
User:VivianDarkbloom
You need to unblock User:VivianDarkbloom. There was nothing to establish that this user was using sockpuppets, only that she once had another account. We don't block editors for being sockpuppets without evidence that they're being sockpuppets. You've blocked this user because they've admitted to having another account. I've used another account, and I'm not going to tell you which one, are you going to block me as well? -- Ned Scott 04:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I totally agree with Ned Scott on this. A sock puppet is an alternate account used deceptively and I don't believe this block applies at all. VivianDarkbloom said "I acknowledged two years ago that I've edited under another name." VivianDarkbloom mentioned "off-wikipedia harassment that was directed at my children by unsavory Wikipedian editors." If an editor has been harassed in the past, a clean start under a new name is a legitimate use of an alternate account. The incivility VivanDarkbloom has expressed is understandable, considering comments like these that have been directed at her in the past. VivanDarkbloom should be unblocked. --Pixelface (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
P
I like the in memoreum section. sock it to 'em.--Crestville (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- All's well. I just have so little to contribute these days.--Crestville (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Left-handed guitar
Re: ""Shout! The Story of the Beatles" gives a pretty good account of Macca's discovering the sinister way of playing guitar.":
Like gauche, not one of my very favorite words. Is this Shout a movie or something else?
Re: "I would also comment that, per point 3, it is easier for a left/right handed combo to teach each other chord fingerings, etc. since you can face each other and "mirror" the chord shape the other is showing...:
That never occurred to me. It might be more efficient to have half of the guitarists in the world play right-handed and the other half play left-handed. I tried once to teach myself left-handed, and it was fairly torture--but at the time I only had one guitar so it was something of a sacrifice to string it backward. TheScotch (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
re that Arbcom case
Hi! (re your message some time ago} As if my abysmal personal life, and the Arbcom case, aren't bad enough, I am now showing signs contracting Wikipediaholicism! BANG! I have even taken to inserting the SAME POST in two different places on my talk-page! Politely, --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- You are very welcome, I am sure. I received your (latest) post, then the computer crashed (not your fault), and I was just about to save this post. Toning it down, you say? I will, I will. With the greatest respect, etc. till the cows come home. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
RFAr Sabbatical
Thanks for your comment on my talk page and thanks for your effort at the ArbCom case. I disagree though -- I don't have any reason to think that anything I say will make any difference to the ArbCom because a majority either aren't reading or aren't thinking. Since we all expect a community decision in this case, it seems to me that it's better to save my energies for that (and I'm pretty sure I'm not even needed there -- other editors make the case much better than I ever can). It's not only a waste to try to convince the ArbCom, it's a waste to try to convince anybody else using that page -- it's already so long that it would repel almost anybody new trying to learn about the case from it, but I think it may be deleted once the case is over. And Bainer's reply to our reactions shows he isn't even reading them with any care. I don't think anything more needs to be demonstrated to anybody. And it feels so much better when I stop banging my head against a wall. I recommend it. Noroton (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
re User:Philippe block of User:Victor64 and subsequent discussions
- archiving.
Hi Mark, the above user has been making nonsensical edits to Paul McCartney, both myself and edge have asked him to stop. will you please have a word in his shell-like? Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: my edits to list of musical instruments played by John Lennon
Dear Mark,
No problem. I provided the list of his instruments to illustrate the fact that John Lennon was a multi-instrumetalist who experimented with variety of sounds and contributed to the uniqueness of many tracks (with The Beatles, and after). His many creative ideas were recorded with introduction of sounds from a variety of his instruments, like bringing his own Mellotron to the Abbey Road Studios for the recording of Starwberry Fields, and many other facts. However, you have full rights to believe that the article size should be imposing a restriction, even on essential facts about a figure of such caliber as John Lennon. His main job was playing musical instruments. That's why I added the list of instruments played by John Lennon. Regards, Steveshelokhonov 22:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
It is Agent007ravi, again
He appears to still be violating WP:SYN while making helpful edits, see this. You may reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I had seen that earlier (I have his page watchlisted) and note that the links are dated January this year. I also noted that he is currently editing, after a break of a few days. If he keeps out of trouble then fine; and if he doesn't, I will do my dropping like a ton of bricks impersonation upon his editing rights. Thanks for the heads up, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
fps (First person view)
I didn't know it was from "first-person view" of how Jimbo is talking. And lo! If you want to post a complaint again, used the autosystem. Signed, Nothing444 00:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The Gift of Freedom
Ahh, the gift of freedom. You are free to ignore me, as I am to you (within reason lol). Signed with Freedom, Nothing444 00:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support!
Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you
 |
Hi LessHeard vanU! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1). |
USANA Article
Nice joke about your comment not being about USANA :P As for the inflation rate comment, it wasn't mentioned in the article which is referenced, so I'm not sure if that's the case. If we're going to be going into that much specifics about the companies finances then should we maybe talk about creating a new sub heading? If so I'll try to gain a better grasp about how the financial market works. From what I've read previously their Q3 was only profitable after they restructured their Q2 earnings to lower them. I haven't read into much detail about this sort of thing simpley because I thought we were staying away from talking about the companies finances. Jean314 (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused. The company commented on why the drop occured and attributed it to a decline in the number of people selling their product in the US. If it were due to inflation, I'm certain they would have mentioned that in defense of the decline. I'm not posting this based on my own data, but from what is supplied in the article from the Associated Press that I've referenced (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080206/earns_usana_health_sciences.html?.v=1). I'm sure they count as a 3rd party source, but do we actually need them to state whether or not it is attributable to inflation when the company has already indicated what it is attributable too? Jean314 (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then my understanding is that my previous addition regarding their Q4 announcement for 2007 stays because it was information which was published by a third party source and features the companies stance on the issue. Correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean314 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
About edit summaries
It was a mere suggestion. I'd do the same to anyone, disruptive or not, if many of their edits did not have a description in the box. You think it would incite something? Please reply on your talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help
Thank you for your help with the Spellmanloves67 dispute. I'm afraid that he keeps adding the non-relevant information back into the article on WebCT. He left me a note that he was going to keep posting it.Sxbrown (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Possible Lyle123 sockpuppet
Hi, LH. I popped by during Wikivacation and saw this guy's edits right out of the chute. I am absolutely convinced we're dealing with banned user User:Lyle123, whos MO is to do exactly the same thing via his socks, namely nonsense articles related to Disney and the Disney Channel. The fact that he's using taxoboxes really convinces me that this is no first-time user. Back to vacationing. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
PS: I'm referring to User:DominicanKingx. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for blocking AnitaLover. Now my user page can be at peace. No reply necessary, just giving you my thanks and salutations. —Victor, Sr. (discussion) (contributions) 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
While I'm somewhat loathe to criticise another admin's block, don't you think your block of the above was a bit hasty? Did you take into account my comment, and that of Luna Santin? GBT/C 22:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, the same applies (to a lesser extent) to User:AnitaLover. She'd not vandalised past final warning, and whilst her actions did indicate a troll account to an extent, there was dialogue in progress... GBT/C 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hiya - on Crossca I do take your point, and admit that I failed to note that it wasn't the first time they'd uploaded the pictures concerned. On Anita, I suppose the proof of the pudding will be in the eating - I agree that there were trollish elements to their first few edits (I said as much on their talk page). I don't know - maybe I come down on the more liberal side of WP:AGF! Anyway, my regards to Cornwall - I was in Tintagel many many years ago, and remember it as being beautiful! GBT/C 22:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
LessHeard vanU's invalid block of nfitz
- Before heading there, perhaps best to start at WP:WQA, as I wanted neutral input on what I perceive to be Personal Attacks and a lack of civility on your part. Please be advised that I have done so. Nothing personal, and I hope you had a good Easter. Nfitz (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Madonna Albums Discography
Thanks for your assistance and advice. I do not mind being inconvenienced for the great good of wiki. Very much appreciated 60.234.242.196 (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- archiving.
Wikiquette Alert regarding User:Nfitz
Hi LessHeard. I'm handling a Wikiquette Alert by User:Nfitz regarding a recent block that he says you issued against him. I just wanted to drop you a quick note and (a) let you know that the WQA has been filed, and (b) ask if you could briefly explain to me what happened that led up to his block. He claims that he doesn't understand the reason for the block and nobody has clearly explained it to him, but I see in the edit history that you say you have explained the situation to him several times and don't wish to talk to him anymore.
I have advised Nfitz that he should probably leave you alone for the time being, as continuing to pester you about the matter is likely only to inflame the situation further. I'd like to hear your side of the issue as well, or at least see if I could get a more specific pointer to the behaviors that led to his block, so I could perhaps address the WQA more effectively. I don't know much about what happened, and I don't have a lot of time at the moment to do the manual research myself.
Thanks in advance. :) I'll watch your userpage for replies. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Replied to your talkpage. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. My personal opinion in all of this now that I've read up, is that Philippe's block against User:Victor64, and your block against User:Nfitz, may both have been hasty, but not completely unwarranted. Nfitz has definitely taken this issue to a much larger extreme than necessary, and I will advise him (as others have already) that his continued pestering of you and other admins in this situation will likely result in another block for WP:POINT and other disruptive behavior. As Hans Adler mentioned below, it might be worth reviewing the blocks themselves for future reference, but I'm going to stay out of that process for the time being. Thanks for your time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have seen you reply to KieferSkunk [126], and this is in reply to the following sentence: "The first archive was under the summary - per WP:DENY; Disruption of Wikipedia, which continuing to pursue a discussion when the other party has made it clear they are not going to respond and therefore disrupting the building of the encyclopedia, knowingly is vandalism."
May I suggest that you read the page WP:DENY and think about whether that sentence makes sense? Until September 2006 it included vague wording about "other negative editors", but at the time it was about "categories, user pages, and tracking pages which serve to describe or document patterned edit abuse". Re-reading guidelines to see if they have changed is always a good idea, but it appears that this one never said anything remotely similar to what you think it says.
Or are you just ignorant of WP:VAND#NOT? Note that the things listed there as not vandalism include "stubbornness" and "harassment or personal attacks". That's a policy, and the wording has been there since 2005.
Your handling of this matter made me look whether you are open to recall. Perhaps you should consider this, as it might save a lot of drama. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
PS: According ot your simplistic definition of trolling ("Making comment for the intent of creating a reaction, rather than attempting to build the encyclopedia, is trolling.") my last comment was also trolling, as is this one. You might want to reconsider that as well, because it seems that many dedicated admins spend most of their time trolling. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Point by point; Firstly, knowingly disrupting Wikipedia = a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia = vandalism. I consider that Nfitz has been and is continuing to disrupt the encyclopedia in pursuing this matter despite a majority of respondees commenting that actions were appropriate. I thus archived the comments, citing I was "denying recognition" for these actions - per ...Vandalism is encouraged by offering such users exceptional notice. (I would further comment that WP:DENY is in fact an essay, rather than a guideline. There is a template which makes it quite clear when reading the page.)
- Secondly, I made it clear that I was being trolled when again archiving more comments - as I had made it clear that I had said all that I was prepared to and was not going to respond further. Comment, however poorly or uncivilly articulated, that is designed to move a discussion forward is not trolling. Not accepting the reasons already (and more than once) given and repeatedly demanding different answers is not communication, and is unlikely to bring about a satisfactory conclusion. WP:TROLL is also an essay, of course, but it is not a term that I use lightly or frequently.
- Thirdly, re WP:VAND#NOT... I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I have made clear that I consider Nfitz's actions in this matter to be vandalism as it is disruptive (that is the reason given on the block summary). I did not block Nfitz because they were stubborn or because they made a personal attack, but by (in this instance) by stubbornly repeating a personal attack upon the reasoning given by another admin - despite a specific warning not to - they were being disruptive. I have not blocked or even warned Nfitz since -even though they continue to use the term lie, and argue for its use in an environment where it is considered unsavoury.
- Under the circumstances, I find your comments about me to being open to recall faintly ludicrous. It is for the simple reason that I do not care to have such actions started by, for instance, people unable to tell the difference between an essay and a guideline that I have no business with that process. I can have my buttons revoked by the community via a RfC, or by ArbCom following a RfAR, where there needs to be evidence shown that there has been systematic abuse of the tools, or (per my userpage) you can find a couple of admins in good standing to come and ask me to give them up. I am not participating in a popularity contest, because I do not do the sysop bit to win friends or influence people - butt because I think I can assist the encyclopedia by doing the difficult things and unpopular acts when necessary. That is why I am more recently found at AIV, commenting at WP:AN and WP:ANI, or getting into arguments over at ArbCom. Looking at your recent contributions I can see we have had little opportunity to interact (since I stay away from the homeopathy related matters).
- In closing, I do not consider your comments trolling - as you are seeking a conclusion. I may feel that you may wish to work on your civility, but I assume good faith in your efforts in this matter and trust you will find my comments reasonable - although perhaps not satisfactory. I would define the difference between you and Nfitz as exampled by Wikipedia:TROLL#Pestering - "If they continue asking the question even after you have clearly answered it, or begin complaining that you will not help them, there is a chance of them being trolls". Under the circumstances you are welcome to raise any point you may feel I have not answered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am sorry that I came across to you as uncivil. I tried to be as diplomatic as possible, but as I was outraged about your behaviour (not your intentions) it wasn't very easy. I hope I have cooled down enough now to be more civil. I am not satisfied with your response, and I take your last sentence as permission to explain why.
- Unfortunately I feel that you still do not understand the problem. There is a general tendency on Wikipedia to throw around links to essays, guidelines or policies, such as WP:TROLL or WP:POINT, instead of just writing "troll" or "point", even in cases where the technical definitions on these pages have nothing at all to do with the matter at hand. This happens mostly to semi-experienced users, but unfortunately some admins have this habit as well.
- Here is the problem with that: If you say "Nfitz is a troll", then Nfitz will just think that you are being uncivil to him, and he can choose to ignore that in order to keep the channel of communication clear. If you say "Nfitz is a WP:TROLL", then you accuse Nfitz of fitting the official definition of a troll as it is written down in WP:TROLL. You have done it with WP:TROLL, and you have done it before that (indirectly, via WP:DENY) with WP:VANDAL. If the definition does not fit, then this tends to be disruptive, because it confuses your target ("Why does he think that I deliberately compromise the integrity of Wikipedia?" – "Why does he think that I deliberately exploit tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people?") and can complicate the resolution of the conflict.
- This is a mistake that everybody can make. A lot of people, including admins, seem to be making it habitually. But when you are told about it and you don't realise that you have made a mistake. When you don't admit that you have made a mistake, so that everybody can move on. That's when it becomes a problem.
- You have used links to policies whose clear wording never applied and never will apply to the respective situations. You seem to have done this to justify preventing a user who wanted you to apologize for a borderline block from contacting you further.
- The problem that I see here is your insistence that something is the case even after you have been alerted to the fact that it is obviously not so. This kind of behaviour is extremely unnerving for your opponent, and it seems that it was exactly such a "lying" situation which led to Nfitz's block in the first place. (But unlike the present situation, I did not examine that one in detail and may be wrong about that.) I can see two explanations for this kind of behaviour, neither of which puts you into a good light. If this is only due to temporary circumstances, please consider a wiki break.
- Here are short answers to your various points, so you can see where exactly your logic breaks down:
- Point one. Your equation is false. You are ignoring the distinction between article space and user talk space. Normal comments on your talk page, even grossly inappropriate ones (which these were not), are no danger for the integrity of the project. You are also assuming bad faith with respect to Nfitz in a situation in which there is no need to do so.
- Point two. You stopped communicating with Nfitz in a situation where this was likely to lead to escalation. Nfitz felt that he had the choice between trying once again or escalating to the next step in dispute resolution immediately, and being told he should have contacted you instead. I think this would not have happened, but it was not unreasonable for Nfitz to think so. He wanted very specifically an apology from you. I don't think you had apologised to him at this stage, and I don't think you have done so by now.
- Point three. I am saying that you are misreading WP:VAND. As I said under point one, your logic for declaring Nfitz a vandal is faulty. WP:VAND#NOT is a clarification, which has obviously been included into the policy in order to make it absolutely clear that this is not a legitimate reading. (By the way, Nfitz has said elsewhere that he has a wife and a baby, and he is currently on parental leave. I think we can refer to him as a "he".) --Hans Adler (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I adhere to a very strict definition of vandalism as "obvious defacement", and thus tend to only use the term in trivial matters. When it comes to giving users a hard time, persisting in asking questions and expecting different answers, etc., I make a point not to use the term "vandalism" for that behavior - instead, the terms I use/policies I point to include those on wikilawyering, harassment, personal attacks, canvassing/forum shopping, trolling, disrupting WP to make a point, assuming bad faith, etc. (Had to be careful how I wrote that - I almost said that I engage in those activities! :)) As you can see, it becomes a complex issue at that point.
- In light of that, I would characterize Nfitz's behavior primarily under WP:POINT, perhaps with a touch of WP:TROLL and WP:CANVAS thrown in for good measure, but I do not believe it constitutes vandalism. Personally, I don't think it should really matter what term we use for stuff like this - the end result is the same, in that you don't really want to deal with Nfitz anymore. (shrug) You certainly have that right, and it's apparent that Nfitz has not been respecting that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
(arbitary section break)
- (ec - responding to Hans Adler) The irony of this, is that you are inferring of me precisely that which I am suggesting of Nfitz - a failure to recognise that the other side may have valid points. Perhaps I am wrong, but am unable to contemplate the reasons why. My response is that I am willing to agree to disagree and move on; Nfitz wants to have me apologise and admit my fault. I cannot do so, as I do not think that I am wrong. I realise that you also believe me to be at fault, but I can point to several admins who reviewed my actions and not thought it inappopriate and to KieferSkunk who, while certainly not condoning the actions, could understand why I came to the decisions I did. I don't want Nfitz to apologise and admit to fault, I want him to stop referring to comments made by another Wikipedian as lies and move on.
- Specifically responding to your points, I did not and do not call Nfitz a troll or vandal - I was referring to specific actions as being vandalistic and trolling. By your application of logic the initial act of replacing the content of WP:Five Pillars with "This is retarded" is not then vandalism - as it is outside of article space, and nor is leaving obscenities on user talkpages for the same reason. Sorry, I do a lot of anti-vandal work and those acts most certainly are vandalism.
- With the points you have raised, I will respond once more. Nfitz has been disruptive, in that he referred to comments by another as lies - contrary to Wikipedia:CIVIL#Examples, last two points in first section - and was cautioned that it was inappropriate. Nfitz was then knowingly disruptive by repeating the phrase and arguing that they be permitted to say it since it was appropriate. Lie has a pretty specific meaning - an untruth told in full knowledge of its inaccuracy in an attempt to alter or hide a truth, and is a very serious accusation. Philippes use of the term "vandal only" is not and should never have been considered a lie; even if its accuracy may be debatable. I had no problem with Nfitz questioning the validity and tariff of the block, but only with the use of language. For this knowing disruption, including on the blockers talkpage, in the form of a personal attack, I then issued the block. I stand by my consideration, and have explained all this more than once to Nfitz. I applied policy correctly. Nfitz believes that the original block was in error, but has gone in entirely the wrong way in addressing his enquiry. He then comments that he doesn't understand the reason for his own block, which is only reasonable if you agree that his interpretation of the rules, policies and guidelines - or why in particular they don't apply to him - is the correct one. I don't, and other editors versed in dealing with blocks and unblock requests also agree with me.
- I see no possibility of Nfitz agreeing with my actions or reasoning, so I have decided to withdraw from the discussion. In the consideration that Nfitz's continuing (and increasingly belligerent) raising of points already answered I noted that I was denying what I now considered trolling, and used references to both WP:DENY and WP:TROLL, when archiving. Perhaps I was insensitive to Nfitz's feelings, but I doubt that any response - other than one which I am not prepared to give - would have been satisfactory.
- Lastly, I have been considerably willing to explain myself and my actions to Nfitz and other parties - it is unfortunate that my explanations have not met with understanding (agreement was never on the agenda) but that has not been because of a lack of effort. When reviewed by outside parties my actions (and the initial actions by Philippe) have been found not to be an abuse of the sysop function. I am content with such a peer review. I am willing to move on, and continue working at keeping the encyclopedia environment as conducive and civil as possible. I would hope that others were, as well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC) (Oh, and I note that Victor64 is unblocked. If they return to editing, I trust that they realise that two instances of changing "taden" to the correct "Beach" in one article does not equal out replacing 6,600 bytes of information on one page and 9,200 letters on another with "This is retarded". The net effect is considerable vandalism, sufficient to indicate that the main or possibly only contribution is vandalism.)
- I admit that I have not clearly distinguished between calling someone a troll or a vandal and calling their behaviour trolling or vandalising. Under the circumstances it would have been a bit complicated. I concede this point. However, you still haven't responded to my main point, which is a misapplication of policies (in the use of the terms "vandal" and "troll") as it is happening all the time and no big deal, followed by subsequent denial when confronted with the fact. You started by denying, now you are changing the subject. (My fault, in part: I see that I wasn't clear enough in my reply to your point 2. I am not saying you should have apologised; in fact I haven't analysed the situation. I am saying you hadn't given him what you wanted, and therefore it was a clear case for some kind of dispute resolution and not trolling. At least that's what I wanted to say.) You could have said "sorry, I don't know what I have been thinking, perhaps I should read the policies a bit more closely" at this point, but instead you pointed out that other people have been wrong about other things.
- As a technical point, there is still a big difference between leaving an unwanted comment on your talk page and defacing WP:FIVE. The former clearly falls under WP:VAND#NOT and can by no stretch of the imagination compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. (Perhaps disruption, after a clear warning, which you have not given.) Calling this vandalising (or trolling) is counterproductive, and I would really like to get some kind of signal from you that indicates that you understand this.
- When you read User talk:Sbharris#Heading off Wikidrama – does Nfitz fit your image of a troll? --Hans Adler (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Last things first, I found Sbharris' response quite illuminating - but I didn't need to review it for me to comment that I do not think that Nfitz is a troll; I considered his insistence in attempting to call me to (his) account by constantly contacting me to be trolling. Again, Nfitz has his feelings injured when I refer to specific incidents and he takes it to impugn his character - but will not accept that is what is so egregious in terming another Wikipedian's comments lies ("How dare you call me a vandal/troll for calling someone else a liar!?") I had earlier seen Sbharris' comment at Nfitz talkpage, but had forbored to comment to avoid escalating the situation.
- On my part, I had failed to realise that you were commenting upon dispute resolution. Totally. My bad. Upon consideration, I think that dispute resolution was commenced - but it quickly failed to proceed. Nfitz complained about the grounds for my block - as he had about Philippes block of the pupil - yet was unable to accept the response(s). After a few exchanges the matter should have been taken to another venue, but it got stuck into a cycle. I broke the cycle by withdrawing from the discussion and archiving, with the suggestion of taking the matter to ANI, but very likely far too late in the day. Instead, in another example of the communication difficulties apparent throughout the case, Nfitz took it to WP:WQA - as they were apparently discomforted by the inference of my archiving edit summaries (which I noted to Nfitz that I would moderate in later archiving, before being aware of the report).
- In conclusion, was there a breakdown in communication? Yes. Could it have been better handled? Yes. Are the parties going to learn from this and move forward? Ummm... well, there is always the possibility/hope... Has this matter, overall, effected the building of the encyclopedia? No (although parties have spent time on this that may have been used more productively elsewhere). Would I have done it differently? No, if there are failings of mine then they are inherent - but I suggest that they are far from being so disruptive as to negate the generally positive effect of my efforts as an admin.
- I trust that I have at last addressed your concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- (Further, upon another review of your post) I did not block Victor64, but I would have blocked without a final warning - I recall there were warnings on the editors talkpage - since I would be interested in preventing disruption to the encyclopedia. I would have blocked for 31 hours and risked resumption when the block lifted, but Philippe blocked indef and requested an undertaking not to resume the vandalism before lifting; different approaches to resolving the same problem.
- To clarify, I have not termed Nfitz's latter campaign as vandalism - that was only to the disruption occasioned by knowingly violating policy by calling someone a liar, after a warning - but as trolling. I block(ed) for vandalism, but usually AGF trolling until it becomes clear that withdrawal is a better option.
- I would also suggest that leaving an unwanted comment, even just one word, on a user talkpage can be far more disruptive than the childish replacement of an entire heavy traffic page with some gibberish; if that word is "Nazi", "paedophile", "racist", "Gooner" or something similar designed to upset or enrage the user. Often, a judgment is made on the intent of the vandalism and that perceived intent informs the decision rendered. Sysops (those who involve themselves in anti vandalism) necessarily make that judgement several times a day. Sometimes mistakes will be made, and again sometimes these mistakes will be compounded by more misunderstanding. It is unfortunate, but inevitable. It can be very distressing when it happens to you, but there is little that can really be done except to accept it. It goes with the territory. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Although there is a lot in your reply that I don't agree with, this is the first time that I actually feel that it was a kind of answer in the usual sense. This is probably because of the misunderstanding you mention. If you answered an aspect of my question that I wasn't even aware of, then it makes a lot more sense that what you said to my real concern was a bit careless.
- I suspect that this kind of miscommunication has also been going on between Nfitz and Philippe and between Nfitz and you. The entire thing started when Philippe made a severe mistake. Initially, Nfitz said that blocking Victor64 was not OK. It seems that Nfitz soon made up his mind what he was really angy about: blocking Victor64 and using the term "vandal-only account". Apparently Philippe had missed completely how much the dispute had shifted. He could have said: "You're right, after 4 edits I shouldn't have written vandalism-only. Sorry, but this can happen, and I can't change it in the blog log." This could have ended the dispute immediately. Or not, but with Nfitz in a much weaker position.
- If we assume that the "vandalism-only" matter had really been the main issue for Nfitz from the beginning (and it seems very likely), then completely denying all communication on this is essentially the equivalent of saying it was justified in the first place. His failure to assume good faith (Philippe apparently thought it was still mainly about the block itself) made him conclude that Philippe insisted it was a vandalism-only account although by now at least he knew it was not so. It makes sense to call that "lying", although that's obviously not a helpful characterisation. Similar to calling people's actions "trolling" or "vandalising". Philippe's failure of good faith was no more blatant than yours. The main difference was that he was punished by being blocked, and you are punished by having to read my lengthy explanations.
- These were my last words on this matter unless you explicitly ask for another reply or it comes up again. But you are of course free to comment, and I will read it. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's cool. We can disagree on aspects large and small, and not resolve it, but still participate in a worthwhile process. It is important, I feel, that people can explain their position even when there is little or no likelihood of changing anything - although there is possibly an incremental/accumulative effect taking place. Admins are very likely to say, "...Because!", when discussing their actions, but they should always be available to explain their reasoning in response to civil enquiries. I hope that this is what happened - eventually - here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see you two come to some sort of understanding on this. :) I was starting to get a little worried. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. Kudos to HA for steering the discussion back into civility. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see you two come to some sort of understanding on this. :) I was starting to get a little worried. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's cool. We can disagree on aspects large and small, and not resolve it, but still participate in a worthwhile process. It is important, I feel, that people can explain their position even when there is little or no likelihood of changing anything - although there is possibly an incremental/accumulative effect taking place. Admins are very likely to say, "...Because!", when discussing their actions, but they should always be available to explain their reasoning in response to civil enquiries. I hope that this is what happened - eventually - here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Recent edits to Nantes, Tramway de Nantes and BusWay
Hi, sorry to involve you in this, I have been a spectator to these daily reverts. My past experience with User:Firstwind being difficult I usualy tend to assume he is wrong, however not being a native english speaker myself I want to be sure. Can you confirm that User:Schcambo is right grammatically on these articles? If as I suppose he is, how can User:Firstwind be convinced to stop reverting to his versions? Can you reply behind and not on my talk page to keep the conversation consistent? Thanks! Mthibault (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- The Manual of style should be the guideline for this query, but I will abbreviate it for you. When the article subject is American, British, Australian or any other English speaking nation, then the spelling and grammar follows the convention of that culture. When the subject is not of any English speaking nation then the style of the original editor should be followed - but the terminology should follow that of the native culture (i.e. we use the French spellings for the & and when it relates to the French based subject; Tramway de Nantes rather than Nantes Tramway.) The circumstances of the articles named are as follows:-
- Nantes; British English (I think) - Single spaces after fullstop/period in earliest edit, use of metric as main measure rather than imperial/American units. It just feels British rather than US in the first 20 or so edits...
- Tramway de Nantes; British English - per the first edit by User Captain Scarlet (spelled "standardisation" with an s rather than a z).
- BusWay; American English - per FirstWind who was the first editor, and who used the American dating method of (Month/Day/Year) instead of the British (Day/Month/Year) convention in the earliest edit.
- What to do about FirstWinds alleged (because I haven't checked all their recent contributions, but am AGF'ing both you and them) intransigience regarding language use conventions? Firstly, point them at WP:MoS and note that the established convention should be followed in non English speaking culture subjects. If they are still unwilling to compromise their style then you may need to look for a Third Opinion, although requesting help from the Wikipedia:WikiProject France editors may be another option. As ever, the best way forward is to find consensus, remain civil, and keep on talking.
- I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- It does indeed. One of the main issues is that Firstwind claims he is a "native" english speaker while it seems obvious he isn't. However, is it gramatically correct to say "nearby" instead of "near" in the case of the Nantes article (an every day revert)? What about the "capital B capital W" part of the BusWay article? I'm trying to see if maybe people might be a bit picky with him because of his past or if his english is as garbled as mine... Thanks again. Mthibault (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- In the context of the Nantes article, near is correct (but it is pretty WP:LAME to edit war over). BusWay is also correct, verified by a Google search for "BusWay Nantes".
- It is possible that FirstWind is a native English speaker... but one with an inflated idea of how good a one they are. Usually none native speakers English is very poor or very good, and FirstWind is between the two. FirstWind also understands but cannot properly articulate English verb structures. My concern is more with their attitude, which gave rise to my warning them. Poor spelling and grammar are fine, as long as the editor allows others to correct any mistakes. FirstWind seems a little sensitive over such matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again! For BusWay my question was about the sentence "(with capitals B and W reffering to the Nantes system)" that keeps being added and then deleted. Why do you say "they" about Firstwind? Mthibault (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I now see what you mean about "...with capitals B and W...". I think it unnecessary in the article text, since it is obvious when reading the title. As for referring (note correct spelling!?) to FirstWind as "they", it is a clumsy way of being gender neutral. I don't know if FirstWind is male or female, but I am not suggesting that they are not an individual. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for blocking him. You may also wish to have a look at his checkuser case; at least five IPs were proven to have been used by him, but were never blocked. --Schcambo (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I had a quick look. I agree with Deskana that there is no use in blocking stale ip's. They may have been reassigned, even the more recently active ones. Since the main account is blocked any ip that is evidently FirstWind can be reported to AIV as a block avoiding sock (include a link to to FirstWind in the {{vandal|FirstWind}}} format in the report). If I'm around you can let me know, but I will as likely see it on AIV - which I have watchlisted. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help. Plus I learnt something about Singular_they ! Mthibault (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- I had a quick look. I agree with Deskana that there is no use in blocking stale ip's. They may have been reassigned, even the more recently active ones. Since the main account is blocked any ip that is evidently FirstWind can be reported to AIV as a block avoiding sock (include a link to to FirstWind in the {{vandal|FirstWind}}} format in the report). If I'm around you can let me know, but I will as likely see it on AIV - which I have watchlisted. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for blocking him. You may also wish to have a look at his checkuser case; at least five IPs were proven to have been used by him, but were never blocked. --Schcambo (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I now see what you mean about "...with capitals B and W...". I think it unnecessary in the article text, since it is obvious when reading the title. As for referring (note correct spelling!?) to FirstWind as "they", it is a clumsy way of being gender neutral. I don't know if FirstWind is male or female, but I am not suggesting that they are not an individual. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again! For BusWay my question was about the sentence "(with capitals B and W reffering to the Nantes system)" that keeps being added and then deleted. Why do you say "they" about Firstwind? Mthibault (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- It does indeed. One of the main issues is that Firstwind claims he is a "native" english speaker while it seems obvious he isn't. However, is it gramatically correct to say "nearby" instead of "near" in the case of the Nantes article (an every day revert)? What about the "capital B capital W" part of the BusWay article? I'm trying to see if maybe people might be a bit picky with him because of his past or if his english is as garbled as mine... Thanks again. Mthibault (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. I went ahead and blocked the rest of the Dbelanges as obvious block-evading socks (and per the user's admission on the sock case page). Your block is set to expire in a little under a day, so I figured I'd contact you first about switching the block time to indef. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 17:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think the puppetmaster, Dbelange (talk · contribs), was indef blocked for something unrelated to puppetry. I blocked the socks based on the fact that he was using them to evade that block. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, and he also implied that you're a racist. I took the liberty of responding. =) --slakr\ talk / 22:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was more of a preemptive cut-em-off-at-the-pass, since invariably if I left it as only "administrators" or only "editors," the point would be brought up that either group is "out to get him/her." :P In any case, as a Trojan Administrator, I apparently have to resort to such nefarious tactics. ;) Though, I have to admit, I've always thought of myself as more of a Durex Administrator. :P --slakr\ talk / 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Heh, and he also implied that you're a racist. I took the liberty of responding. =) --slakr\ talk / 22:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Hey thanks, I wondered why no one else was tagging them, and now I know. Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I saw your note on his talk page and I wanted to sanity check my decline of his unblock request. Was your comment at all directed to the language I used in the decline? If so, I'll refactor. Ronnotel (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Sellsellsell
Huh. My anti-vandal software did that without warning him. Of course, I could've reverted the report... Anyway, thanks for pointing that out! 21655 τalk/ ʃign 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
I appreciate your response to my comment on the incidents notice board. I cherish my petulance! ;-) EganioTalk 22:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
78.16.122.227
Sure. It was a short block and if you want to take responsibility, do. Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hello LessHeard vanU. Would you revert the anons last edits at British Isles and Northern Ireland? I've reached my personal 2-revert limit. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
However, the anon changed existing content & ignored my requests for discussion. I would be happy to discuss things there if first the established edits are restored. Trust me, once they're restored, I'm not gonna sneak away. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's OK, Administrator Daniel Case has reverted them & I've just opened up discussion with the anon. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Who needs youtube?
Who needs youtube, when our contributors can create such delectable mental images as this[127] with a mere edit summary? Thanks for my daily smile! Risker (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The category you wrote, Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of LessHeard vanU, is uncategorized. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This user is requesting to be unblocked - you had blocked him earlier today for civility violations. While I do agree with your block, this user has made constructive contributions in the past, and I feel an indefinite block is somewhat undeserving. He says that he has read through WP:CIVIL and feels he understands it and is willing to offer apologies to all involved. If you're not willing to fully unblock him (which again, I would understand - his recent comments were certainly quite severe), would you consider shortening this block to a few days? Thanks for your time, and please let me know if you wish to discuss this further. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Like I told Joe, it's up to you. I think he's ok to be unblocked now, if you're comfortable with it. Thanks for the reply. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- As someone who was involved in this user's last few days, I would like to say I support the original block. This user is, and has been extremely uncivil to almost every editor he's come into contact with, and doesn't seem to understand the point of common courtesy. He trumpets his 13,000 edits, but upon further review less than 10% of those are actually to wikipedia articles. Most of his edits are to his sandbox, or to various talk pages. He has a long history of starting firestorms on multiple fronts, and turning what should be simple edits and consensus building into long arguments with everyone else involved. How many of his edits are actually constructive edits, and how many are talk page arguments that come out of his incivility and personal attacks?
- He has a well-deserved reputation for being difficult, which last night was shown to be appropriate. He has feigned civility before. I support the original block.
- He's just been unblocked, as unfortunately I hadn't realized you'd commented here. I've dealt with this user in the past, and he seems open to learning from his mistakes. I'm sure he'll be careful to do the same here. Should be fall back again, however, we will certainly be a little more careful about unblocking him. Thanks for your comments. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand blocks are there to protect wikipedia, and not to punish people who violate the policy. Even without his block for civility violations, he's still willfully violating the WP:3RR policy on Abigail Taylor, the article which he's taken ownership of and started all of last night's problems.
- Again, I know blocks aren't there to punish people who violate policy, but I don't feel like this interpretation of policy is protecting the other 6-8 editors who spent time last night being personally attacked. At the very least, he should have his WP:3RR block reinstated, and should be at WP:1RR on the Abigail Taylor article, since his ownership of that article began the mess.
- I do appreciate your time in this matter. I hope I don't come across as upset at wikipedia policy or you as an admin, it's just my obvious frustration at someone who spent last night trolling for arguments and violating policy being free to do so again. Thanks again for you attention. I'll also copy this to Hersford's page. Redrocket (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
(OD)I appreciate your response, thanks for talking it out with me. He did violate WP:3RR last night and I had filed a complaint on him (when it was an ownership issue, and not yet a personal attack issue). That was moot when he was blocked. As a sign of good faith, I think that issue should be dropped. If he's going to go with a fresh start and keep it civil, I won't bring it up again and I'll advise other editors to do the same. If he doesn't, that'll become an admin matter. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was asked to have a look at this, and if I may, I have a few comments. Indefinite blocking is sometimes used in cases where the blocking admin is unsure how long the block should be in place for, or if they think the person being blocked should demonstrate that they have understood why they were blocked, and acknowledge this and say they will change or stop, before being unblocked. I happen to think that this seemingly persuasive "don't unblock unless they apologise/are contrite" approach, unless done very diplomatically, can actually make things escalate and get worse. The reason being that this approach can end up feeling like "do this in order to get unblocked" or, worse, "we are going to force you to grovel and apologise, or we won't unblock you". The key point here is the reaction of the person being blocked. First off, if you have never been blocked yourself, don't assume that you know what it feels like. Many people react poorly to being blocked. Sometimes that is a sign of a wider problem, but crucially, sometimes it is not. In these latter cases, we should be very wary of declining an unblock reason because of the reaction the block provoked. By their very nature, because they are often misunderstood as permanent blocks (understandably because sometimes they do end up being de facto permanent blocks), indefinite blocks are more likely to get people angry than definite blocks of a few days or a week. There is a countering argument that indefinite blocks can 'shock' people into acting better in future, but I think any block should be able to perform that function, especially when it is a first block. Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at this specific case, I do see that this editor (Joseph A. Spadaro) has been contributing for over a year, with a large number of edits (I do see the sandbox edits, but those count if they help produce viable content), and a previously clean block. I do see recent warnings and incivility (but also some things being called incivil that probably didn't rise to that level). I also see allegations of previous incivility, but no evidence provided. Given: "He has a well-deserved reputation for being difficult, which last night was shown to be appropriate. He has feigned civility before", it seems that a request for comment would have been better (and could still be viable), where Redrocket can provide the diffs he says he is prepared to provide. Some commentary on the quality of the contributions might also help. One final thing: I am concerned about the 'laundry list' nature of the block log: "Disruption: Harassing editors, incivility, abuse of process" - that is three separate reasons provided. LessHeard vanU should be prepared, upon request, to individually support each of those reasons, if only because Spadaro would also be expected to respond to each reason individually. Another problem with a 'laundry list' of reasons for a block is that sometimes, if one or more of the reasons is found to be weak, an impression can be given that a list of reasons is being given to bolster support for the block. In general, especially in the case of a first block, it is best to pick the most severe reason, block for that, and explain the rest on the talk page. The aim is to reform the editor, not provide as many reasons as possible in the block log for maintaining an indefinite block. Also, in general, a long list of reasons in a block log makes the review process more difficult. Better to explain one reason clearly, than three tersely. I'm going to raise some of the general points at WT:BLOCK. Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- See here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- To comment here since I was mentioned above, I'm not going to provide any diffs. I've had a discussion with LessHeard vanU and I obviously disagree here, but I'll respect the judgement of the admins who've made the decision. As I said above, I'm just going to forget about the issue. I wish you guys well in turning him into a civil, productive editor, but I've spent too much time on this user as it is. Redrocket (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Off-topic comment
Greetings, just came to tell you, I came across your page from following Joseph A. Spadaro, where we met on Talk:List of the verified oldest people, and I have to say, I found a quote on your page incredibly funny!! And added it to a page on mine. That's all, heh. Neal (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC).
Message
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The User:Hanvanloon case
FYI: Update to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hanvanloon DanielPenfield (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC) --
- Responded there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: the kids' program vandal you popped today (for Majorclanger)
I am fairly certain that the individual in question (69.203.66.82)is a sock of GSNguy. I will be reporting him as such to WP:SSP. He geolocates to the same area, and his MO is the same (subtle date vandalism). The only thing this IP hasn't done that his (probable) former incarnations have, is trying to change my password and that of User:Mrschimpf--he doesn't like us because we keep getting his socks banned. Any ideas you have as to how we can get this guy out of WP's collective hair would be much, much appreciated. Gladys J Cortez 23:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
See my comments. Reply to my talkpage if you want to speak to me. By the way, I hope you had a good break, thank you. Versus22 (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
what is the problem about picture??
what is the problem about picture??--Qwl (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Denial of AG you locked the article. please write reason. someone say this false information. that pictures are WP:Verifiability WP:No original research. i try to make WP:Neutral point of view. plesae explain your reasons? how you accept false information?--Qwl (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- i cant see an edit war. and i cant see a note about i must talk at the top of the page! someone say this is false. i wrote note to talk page. that user doesnt talk. user say false. but dont have any reason or something like that about WP:Verifiability WP:No original research. according to user pictures are false. i think pictures are true and WP:Verifiability WP:No original research. according to Wikipedia rules: they are WP:Verifiability WP:No original researchand we must write deniers arguments. you must see NPOV.
sample: if said US president is not Bush, this is false. will you lock the article? or will you want source that WP:Verifiability WP:No original research. --Qwl (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Also see WP:CCC
Page won't be edited
Hi there, I'd spoken to you a while ago about a page I was working on. Unfortunately, the artist doesn't want any more time spent on editing the page so I won't be able to make any changes... I'm quite disappointed myself because I don't think the post is that useful but there's not much I can do. Thanks for your help nonetheless. You can respond here if you'd like Maria215 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- That is disappointing. As you may be aware, the artists page is liable to be edited by any third party. I have it on my Watchlist, so I will ensure that any added content is verifiable and otherwise encyclopedic. If you are able to edit Wikipedia - not necessarily the artists page - in your own time you are of course welcome to do so. Thanks for your contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
School blocks
Hi LessHeard vanU, I presume I was correct in posting the school's request to be blocked for a period of time in ARV. Thanks for the quick response! Can you put up the "this IP is a school IP" message on their talk page as well as I find that is sometimes handy when doing anti-vandal work. Cheers! --Samtheboy (t/c) 21:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Tool2Die4
Hi - I have unblocked this user per his unblock request. I initially turned it down as looking too suspicious, but a private checkuser did tally with his story. Though I'm not entirely sure about it, I am prepared to give him a chance given his previous good record - though I'll keep an eye out! Please feel free to re-block if you're not as gullible convinced as me though :) Black Kite 23:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Serial vandalism
Regarding this edit. The logical extension of your edit summary is that admins do not care about serial vandals who vandalise every six weeks or so. If that is the position of Wikipedia, it should change. Viewfinder (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Re:re User talk:130.63.210.55
OK...This bugged me more and more as I drove home from work, and I'd like to make sure you followed the entire sequence of events.
- 130.63.210.56 (talk · contribs) vandalizes 3 articles, (Scientific management, Best Buy, and Adam Smith), being reverted and warned between each by Thisisborin9 (talk · contribs), which left them at a level 3 vandalism warning.
- 130.63.210.55 (talk · contribs) appears 6 minutes later to vandalize Best Buy by calling Thisisborin9, who had just reverted and warned an IP only 1 number off, gay.
- I revert this, and looking at the page history, I'm fairly certain that this is either the same person, or a classmate sitting next to them in a computer room somewhere who's been watching the whole thing. In my mind, this "new" IP doesn't deserve to start off with a level 1 vandalism warning. They're obviously related, and should be at a final warning now. Since the previous warnings are on a different talk page, I use vandal4im and link to the other talk page for clarity. They then vandalize my page.
- I report them, again leaving a link to the other talk page, and get a message implying I'm too sensitive about being called gay?
When I wrote the original reply on my talk page, I had assumed you had followed all of that. As I drove home, I thought that maybe you missed the links, because otherwise I don't see what reason you felt I needed a note. I don't see how my reaction would have, or should have, been different no matter what words they were using to vandalize. I didn't reference their specific comments at all, and used only rollback and templated warnings. Just got the new message bar when I previewed this...and your comment does make me think that you were missing half of this story. In any case, I'm gonna go grab some food. Have a good one. --Onorem♠Dil 21:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Miss half the story...? Yeah, probably, on a good day..! Like I said, some things hit my personal buttons harder than others - and vandalism + gay is one of them. I apologised on your talkpage and I apologise here. nb. Eat slowly when peeved, it is better for the digestion. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Smiling!
[128] If only there was a wiki-award for best edit summary of the day! Let's face it though, for some people it isn't the speed of typing that is the problem, it's their haste in hitting the "save page" button. Risker (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Whaddya mean, stalking? I just keep forgetting to uncheck the "watch this page" box, and also to clean out my watchlist... I know, what a lazy git. It does, however, result in unexpected moments of amusement, as when I got to watch someone running around deleting troll warnings this morning. Risker (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
hello
when you talk, i listen. you are a well respected person unlike some admins because you sometimes want to listen to the little guy.
I am shocked when I got the message....
As I'm sure you know, the user who insisted on the police union edit was banned because he was abusing Wikipedia with multiple sock puppets. As he has continued to do - but don't worry, he will be stopped again. Tvoz |talk 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Tvoz is accusing me of being a sock and threatening to ban me. Do you know what banning is? It is like being murdered. Since I am from a small village in India, some admin will block out the whole village. I do not want to be banned because Tvoz doesn't like my edits.
Please reconsider and ask Tvoz to behave and do not say I am the harasser. Tvoz is the harrasser. I just modified my comments on AN after people said it was not a legal threat but just a threat.
Look again...Tvoz is threatening me. Please ask Tvoz to stop. I am KVS. 122.164.121.238 (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. I have notified Tvoz of the complaints made by you, but unless there are specific examples of the behaviour you are complaining about (see WP:DIFF on how to provide examples) there is little the admin boards can do. While I have not looked over Talk:Barack Obama I have reviewed User talk:Tvoz and failed to see any comment by you. I would advise you that I have worked with Tvoz in the past in some very different articles, and always found her to be a civil and co-operative editor. Perhaps if you were to talk to her about your concerns you may find a way of working together. However things turn out, I suggest that raising complaints about different aspects of someone you are in dispute with is not the best way of going about matters. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Late response
See here. Sorry for the late response. Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
???
it says i editted something on april 5. i've been away for nearly a week. how is that possible? did someone infiltrate my name? This is a BIG DEAL! I havent editted anything in about a week Mayday2010 (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
hey
about a week ago, my neighbor asked me to edit something on wikipedia, as it turns out, now that i recall, i told him i couldn't. Something is wrong. I havent ever edited an actual page. I Havent even been on wikipedia in a week. Something is wrong. Mayday2010 (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The Buckingham Palace IP
Before moving on to Buckingham Palace, that IP was editing Irish-related subjects. I wonder if it is related to the discussion that Giano was involved with on BrownHaired Girl's userpage a couple of hours ago. Just FYI. Good call. Risker (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing there that I can see, no third party in a revert war that had both combatants blocked by BHG. FWIIW, I consider BHG as one of the more level headed admins in action who seems to be targeted once in a while for (presumably) self identifying as female. She may not be overly enamoured of Giano, but that is likely true of a greater percentage of admins (and Arbs, for that matter!) than it is of the majority of editors. In short, I have no idea who the ip is - and nor need I to take the action I did. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Just saying I like that you told the 2 to disengage with each other, with your "I really think the best thing is to step back - both of you - in this matter." I think it was pretty bold of you, especially to break up a conflict that brought up over sarcasm. However, there might be a tad bit of uncivility in Giano's part.
- I see the conflict resulted as a result of sarcasms after a criticism. BrownHairedGirl was sarcastic when she replied:
- Giano, you always know better than any admin who actually [...]
- And Giano was sarcastic back to her when he said:
- Glad you have finally realised that BHG, even though it has taken you a while. I'm always happy to [...] Feel free to call on me any time for advice.
- 2 wrongs don't make a right, but what do 2 sarcasms make? Unfortunately, I have no idea.
- Anyways, I agree with BrownHairedGirl that locking a page isn't worth it for the sake of 2 edit war opposers. But a 24 hour block is so short it's not even worth complaining, especially to IPs, so I really don't follow why someone like Giano would care. It's not worth complaining so it's not even worth criticizing. So no doubt, the sarcasms started as a result of criticism. I know after scanning that sarcasm isn't mentioned in WP:Civil, and probably not making criticisms either, but you may have to look at the intent of the criticism to see if that itself was uncivil (or trolling). There are such thing as trolling criticisms, aren't there? Regards. Neal (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC).
The humble cravat
I didn't know that there was such animosity about the cravat. I might delay my attempts to bring it back into fashion! I agree that puce might not be to everyone's taste! Cheers for the help, yours Lord Foppington (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Mt. Moosilaukee
Just FYI, the country name in that article is available in the infobox on the right side. Jrclark (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Lee-Hom Wang: gay or not?
Headline translation: "Wang Leehom denies being gay; Xiao S's child expected to be born around Chinese New Year's Eve or [Chinese] New Year's day."
Scroll down to the part of the article that has this text (copy and paste if needed): "前阵子被同性恋绯闻困扰的王力宏，在蔡康永的逼问下，坦言被传绯闻已经很烦了，若是与男性传绯闻更让他感到困扰，“我不是同性恋，这种绯闻会让别人误会。”"
Translation: "A moment before, Lee-Hom Wang, who was pestered with homosexual rumours, was forced to answer Kevin Tsai's question; frankly, the rumours were already bothersome; [the fact that] the rumours dealt with [other] men bothered him even more. "I am not gay, this type of rumour will [only] create misunderstanding." "
Self-explanatory. You can confirm the translation with any editor with a zh rating of 2 or above. Pandacomics (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Your message
Dear LessHeard vanU, Thanks for your note on my talk page. I would also ask that you warn User:Cult free world to be civil and to focus on content, not persons. With each new attack he gives I have recently taken to simply beginning with, "please review WP:NPA." Granted, I have bit the bait in the past due to exasperation but I keep coming back to content, have proposed compromises, have provided evidence (e.g., today I provided two separate sites showing how court cases are primary sources in need of secondary sources for interpretation) and faced continual uncivil responses, see today's talk page, for example. He keeps bringing up difs from weeks ago and ignores the rationale (i.e., I posted a speedy delete because he re-posted previously deleted content within a week of the previous deletions, then he brings this up as to how he can't trust me and chooses to ignore the rationale, etc.). I could do the same but remain hopeful that he'll start fresh.
I have created several new articles and have substantially contributed information and references to many, many different articles, and believe in the Wiki policies. For instance, today, after someone reverted the user, I saw that (finally) he had found two WP:V and WP:R sources and quickly restored those here. I think the third opinion is a great idea and I committed to remaining civil and on content on the article and only ask to be treated civilly and in good faith as well. Thank you, Renee (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Page blanking
hi there, I have just recieved an email from user:bridwater who said that you had put a block on them editing, i gave them permission to test that as long as they reverted it afterwards sorry if this has caused an mix up Chris19910 (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have just recieved an email from bridwater who said that you are unblocking them, thanks for understanding about them using the "edit rollback" function on my userpage. Chris19910 (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Page Blanking
Hi there, have just had another email saying that bridwater is unable to edit because the ip that they are using has been blocked even though they have been unblocked and their account is free to edit they cant because they are restricted because of the ip block, could you please remove that block now that the problem has been resolved. Chris19910 (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks I have just been informed that it is an autoblock that has been set on the ip address that he is using. Chris19910 (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope still not sorted out, could you get another admin to try and do it? Chris19910 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
Hi there, i now have a sockpuppetry case against me because i gave permission to bridgwater to blank my page and because i have adopted carol sutton. This is totally out of order can you explain to the user that has filed the report that bridwater had permission to do it. As they dont believe me Chris19910 (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you mean to delete everyone else's statement there? Risker (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yipes! There wasn't anyone else's statement there when I wrote my statement - all I did was hit "save"... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This is either a criticism wrapped in a compliment...
...or vice-versa, so please take it in the spirit in which it was intended: Re: your comment to Guy on AN/I...recognizing all the important pre-existing factors (the personal dynamics/clashes, the persistence of the whole MONGO thing, etc, etc, ad naus): even with all those things granted, that remark was not something I would have expected from you. I'm more used to seeing you as one of the clearer heads and voices of reason in contentious debates, so this was...surprising, and not in a good way. I understand that there are certain personalities who can be challenging, but hang in there--especially in these personality-driven arguments, your clear-headed side is much more valuable than the satisfaction of getting in a well-aimed kick at the shins of another debater. Again--all respect intended, but that just seemed somehow beneath you. You're very well-respected, so please, don't lower yourself. Best...Gladys J Cortez 00:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fair comment, and not my bestest moment... LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, we've all had 'em. (I still writhe in shame over most of mine, but I'm pathetic like that.) :) I intended that more as a "don't let 'em get you down"/"remember how well-respected you are" kinda thing. Thanks for not being grossly offended. Gladys J Cortez 01:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Just FYI
[[130]] he has blanked the talk page of the proposed article. Before your block I would have just undone this and archived it myself.
Now I have to go file an ANI report and waste some admin's time with it. The feeling over here is frustration and irritation.
I emailed you saying I don't need your help... and it is true I don't need help from you, however given that your actions have now had consequences, are you game to help sort out those consequences?
So what would you recommend be done? This user is about to file for an RfC with half of the discussion gone.
Please respond a la my talk page. Sethie (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Bridwater
Thanks for the message. I got involved because I saw Chris posting the sockpuppet report on WP:SSP, where I've been working to clear the backlog for a while, but when I looked at that page I couldn't see the new report. I looked at the subpage (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Chris19910) and realised that the reason I couldn't see anything was because one of the alleged socks had blanked the page. That got the old antennae whirling - all a bit strange, I thought. A look at their talk page showed the blocks and unblocks (I confess, it was getting a bit late, so I was in a bit of a hurry) and I came rapidly to the conclusion that they weren't here to contribute constructively so indef blocked. I've subsequently unblocked - if I get the time I'll also deal with the WP:SSP report.
- Oh, sorry, the reason I didn't contact you before acting was because I didn't see that you were involved at that point? I didn't see it as a situation akin to where I was unblocking without reference to you, so didn't know that adminquette required it. If it did, then my apologies. GBT/C 06:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
North Korea
Hi, sorry to bother again. Do you have a minute to give an opinion on a light dispute over the existence of a "weblogs" section in the external links at North Korea? The discussion is on the talk page. Thanks. Mthibault (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks again. The debate is still going on, but is a bit sterile. I called for a RfC and for MedCab, I hope it'll help. If you have a minute we can always use some advice. Mthibault (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again. I had taken it to RfC a few minutes before your comment. Is it properly formulated ? Mthibault (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to have attracted some outside attention, who are not suggesting that it is malformed, so I would say yes. I think you should link to the earlier discussion and WP:3O sections, so any reviewer can see the point of contention, and the policies cited and refuted. I hope it works out, and please let me know if I can be or further help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again. I had taken it to RfC a few minutes before your comment. Is it properly formulated ? Mthibault (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks again. The debate is still going on, but is a bit sterile. I called for a RfC and for MedCab, I hope it'll help. If you have a minute we can always use some advice. Mthibault (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry Case
Hi there, yes I have had another account but used the right to vanish on wikipedia as i was to busy to keep up with the editing and contributing to the site. Chris19910 (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Re: RFC
If you feel it's biased, create one yourself and I'll certify it if it appears neutral. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 18:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- No thanks, I have made my position clear at ANI and at RfAR; I felt the block was correct in principle but too severe as regards original tariff. I therefore see no reason for a RfC, but would participate in one if I was content with the format. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your comment. Basicly, I just wanted reassurance that his complaint against me was`dismissed and if I read your comments right, you have done just that.
Thanks,
Vonita (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI, just wanted to let you know I chimed in on the case of Chris19910 and Bridwater. -- Fuzheado | Talk 01:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Noted, cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
Hi there, Thanks for the advice have taken it on board and have now decided to unistall my twinkle because of all of the inconvenience caused with the account. I wondered how do i vanish from wikipedia? The reason i ask is because i would much rather vanish and create another account thank have all this sockpuppet case go through. I am in the middle of exams and dont really need the stress of this aswell yours Bridwater (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks have take your advice and gone on a wikibreak. Bridwater (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry Case
Hi there, i have noted on the case page about the previous account and said if they would like me to provide details i will. Just thought that i would update you on the case. Chris19910 (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
My RfA...
EyeSerenetalk 17:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
AN/I and Socks
I was just appraised by User:Kelly that the subject of the current AN/I might also be the subject of a sock suspicion as detailed here. Thought you might like a heads up. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm more interested in keeping the ip ident on the ip talkpage. I'm retiring for the night soon, so perhaps another admin can take any required actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- 'k. Wasn't expecting you to leap all over it until it was more than talk, but I seem to remember that you prefer to have a wealth of info rather than a laser pointer of it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi from the anonymous user. The additions that I suggested and were contested were, Movie Credits in the Infobox, supporting Flagicons on a "Response" page and civilly debating a citation that was written in different ways on different websites. I'm surprised to see them compared to the poorly written Anti-Hirsi Ali and decidedly pro-Islamic writings of Zencv.
- I'll suggest that the system is being manipulated to benefit a single users obsessive vendetta against another. I'm sorry that you must waste your valuable time and resources on such a baseless accusation. 75.57.196.81 (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Unblock of Proabivouac
Hi, I'm confused by this unblock summary [131]. Are you saying that your reason for overturning without discussion a block by another admin for harassment is WP:IAR? WjBscribe 23:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- JzG blocked him for harassment. That seems to be a valid block within Wikipedia policy. Consensus is not required before blocks can be issued. I would like to know (absent a consensus that JzG's block was inappropriate) what basis you had for unblocking without discussion. WjBscribe 23:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
RFA - Removal of "Spurious" questions
Apologies if they offended you - but the first of my questions were absoulutey genuine - I needed to know the candidates view of WP:RECENT as well as WP:BIO. I admit the last one was a bit inappropriate and I agree not to put it on again but the first - was acceptable in my views. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 23:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
my message to Giano
Lol, I really must refactor, I wouldn't want to be the one to tip him over the edge.:) Merkin's mum 00:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please block this user
You recently deleted Marc cegoda, and the user who created it, Special:Contributions/Micluvinmuffin, has vandalised many other pages. He received final warning and vandalised after that. Can you please block him? Thanks, Crazy Boris with a RED beard 13:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. Crazy Boris with a RED beard 14:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Herman's Hermits
Hi, just wanted to ask why the links to videos of performances were removed? Thanks, DavidOaks (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| I see you alot on AIV, dealing with reports and blocking vandals. I've seen you on AIV quite a lot, and I want you to know your tireless work has not gone un-noticed. :) Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 23:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC) |
No problem :D There is no doubt you deserved it. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 23:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You blocked the above user a couple of days ago for 12 hours for vandalism. I've just closed a WP:SSP report here in which she was involved - do you think that there's sufficient to go on to up the block of FF to indef? All other accounts listed in the SSP report are indef blocked already. GBT/C 13:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sesshomaru
My original inclination was toward a 24 hour block, but Sesshomaru has been previously blocked for 3RR, and our general agreement is that blocks should get generally longer. Sesshomaru showed staggeringly bad judgment in this case - he should have requested page protection (which I would have been inclined to give), but to go on and on in a never-ending cycle was a terrible decision. I'm also not sure how one could reasonably conclude that he was reverting vandalism, but I'm open to hearing more about the theory. To my mind it looks like a clean-cut content dispute regarding one statement made by the narrator.
However, at this point, if he were to request a review, I'd be inclined to look favorably on it, but he would need to convince me it was vandalism and not a content dispute. I'll go leave a message to that extend on his talk page. - Philippe 16:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have been in discussion with the user and have lifted his block early. I'm not saying it was a bad block - I still think it was valid - but I honestly think the user believed he was acting in the best interest of the project and it was a considered action, so I'm reducing the block to time served. He seems satisfied with that, and I explained that the very definition of vandalism includes "bad faith", which I don't think was proven to be present there. I think it's just a content dispute that got out of hand, but there's no sense leaving a block on to be punative. - Philippe 20:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The user is back at it. Can you block him/her and permanently semi-protect the page? This should put an end to it. PS: Thanks for helping me get unblocked ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
FA Review Guidelines
For your information, because I will assume good faith, which you have refused:
- Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates "FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and meet the FA criteria." That does not say "meets some FA criteria". It says "meets the criteria".
- Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria "it has the following attributes." It does not say "has some of the following attributes"
- "It follows the style guidelines, including:" It does not say "follows some of the style guidelines"
- "It is of appropriate length," This is a reinforcement of the above with a direct acknowledgement of WP:SIZE. It does not say this is an opinion. This is a requirement.
Two of the four requirements deal directly with size. If you cannot understand that, then you need to go bring it up on that talk page. It is clear. It is to the point. It will not change, because these are core points of the MoS. FAs must follow these requirements. Its not a discussion. Its very straight forward. If you are unwilling to acknowledge such things, as you have previous demonstrated, then you are unwilling to actually look at the situation, and you have, instead, posited your own situation. Your comments have, to this point, been extremely uncivil. I ask that you acknowledge the actual situation, the facts of the situation, and correct your improper statements in accordance to the facts of the matter. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have not insulted anyone. I have not done anything but show my point of view, show the MoS, and pointed out there are many other suitable places that do not have MoS requirements like Wikipedia for their featured articles. That is not a violation of civil in any degree, and if it would, it would be a minor violation under "rude", which would go under Wikiettiquette. However, you are completely blowing this out of proportion as much as the other user had. I have been extremely fair. I have been extremely polite. I have been uninvolved, abstract, and scientific in my rationale. If you are unwilling to see that, then I do not know how you ever will. I do not believe that I can convince you of anything, because you have made it clear that you don't really care about the situation, since you have passed judgment while ignoring many of the important facts.
Furthermore, potential consensus change does not mean that we must ignore the rules in the FA Review now. If it changes, it changes. But until it changes, the FA guidelines are quite clear: if it violates both 2 and 4, then it cannot be FA until it is fixed. The simplest thing for them to do would be to fix it, not try to show half a dozen different ways how they do not violate the rule. There are many people who have witnessed the excessive size of the article. The only problems here are a clear WP:OWN issue from the unwillingness to change an article that was put up for FA.
Also, image size? If you read what I quoted above, there is nothing describing "images" at all. Images are not part of the argument. I ask that you actually read the argument to get a better sense of what is being discussed. If you have questions, please leave them on my talk page. I will reply quickly. However, you claiming that this is over "images" is troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have filed a complaint in regards for your unwillingness to follow the discussion before making warnings here. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thank spam
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky |
The user you just blocked...
The user you just blocked under the IP address 141.30.133.87 has now moved on to a different computer at the Technische Universität Dresden, using IP 141.30.133.81 now and editing the same articles.EA210269 (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- The user has quite a history of disruptive edits involving the SV Dynamo and related articles, like Dynamo Berlin. Under Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Fox53 you find a collection of his previous reincarnations. He continued to IP-hop after I went to sleep last night and managed to revert those articles up to nine times, under three different IP's. Sad thing is its all public computers he uses, at the Saxon state library or the technical university in Dresden, which now have been blocked at least for a little while. Its unfortunate to think that an honest editor may now not be able to edit from there because of him.EA210269 (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Rfa thanks
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Your kind offer
You offered to help with User:Sesshomaru. I have a major problem with this user. Over the last few months we have clashed many times and I am quite convinced that he follows me around and changes my edits whenever he can. His actual edits are generally OK, sometimes very petty but mostly according to the book. An example of him tracking me is that in the last few minutes he has edited two talk pages Zvezda and Zuber that he simply could not have stumbled upon without reading my contributions list - I know this is permitted but in our circumstances it is highly insensitive. He has admitted to stalking me here (by not answering) and more specifically here. It happens too many times to be a coincidence and it is very annoying, doubly so because I do the majority of the real work of cleaning dab pages (see my history) whereas all he does is (in his words) "tweak" after I have cleaned ... again not against the rules but annoying. I have offered to let him take two thirds of the dab pages if he left me the other 9 letters but he rejected this idea as being "pointless". He pretty well always removes my questions from his page as he does with any editor who asks an awkward question or makes a critical comment see these in a very short period [132] [133] [134] [135] three times [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144].
There is no doubt that I do make things worse (born out of frustration) but I have genuinely tried to make the peace - I made quite a decent apology a while ago and that was treated with contempt.
He also has a very annoying habit of spelling out in caps on his edit summary words like "as I TOLD you" etc.
Oh I know just what you are thinking and you are right, "Get a grip Abtract and rise above it". Yeah you are right ... I think I will try the ultimate sacrifice ... maybe I will not edit a page that (s)he has edited in the past 48 hours and I will not converse with him/her on any subject ... no contact at all. Thanks for listening, it was helpful just to say it. Abtract (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Block
Hi. Did you realise that two of the three warnings, were issued after the user's last edit? Thanks TigerShark (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Then I would consider the block inappropriate. The user has made a small number of vandalism edits (they were all vandalism, but that is the case for all new vandal accounts), and seems to have stopped after their first warning. So if we applied this reasoning almost all vandals would be blocked without warning, and that is clearly against policy. TigerShark (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- It was one of the three, actually. I warned for 'Cerebral salt-wasting syndrome' first, and in the same minute he vandalized 'Estivaux' next. Channel ® 23:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, its cool. Sysops make errors - whether it is judgement or mis(non)application of policy - and people are correct in reminding said sysop of the rules. Providing that the errors are not habitual or form some pattern then the comment is noticed and we move on. Of course sometimes the sysop is correct - whether in judgement or not being strictly bound by the rules - but the people are still correct in reminding said sysop of the rules. Providing that the correct actions are not habitual or form some pattern... I'm with Slartibartfast on this one, and don't intend to burn out any time soon. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Have a PanGalactic Gargleblaster and relax. Cheers. Channel ® 00:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- No, its cool. Sysops make errors - whether it is judgement or mis(non)application of policy - and people are correct in reminding said sysop of the rules. Providing that the errors are not habitual or form some pattern then the comment is noticed and we move on. Of course sometimes the sysop is correct - whether in judgement or not being strictly bound by the rules - but the people are still correct in reminding said sysop of the rules. Providing that the correct actions are not habitual or form some pattern... I'm with Slartibartfast on this one, and don't intend to burn out any time soon. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- It was one of the three, actually. I warned for 'Cerebral salt-wasting syndrome' first, and in the same minute he vandalized 'Estivaux' next. Channel ® 23:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The indef block of RJWiki27
...has earned you a big ol' kiss on the forehead from a VERY happy vandal-fighter. Thanks so much! Gladys J Cortez 22:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Recourse
Is there any recourse for this behavior? [145] I just do not see how this could possibly help the people who are actually attempting to reach a middle ground i this content, its completely destructive and just serves to divide a group who was actually finally engaging in meaningful discussions. I would have removed it, but I honestly fear reprisal for doing so. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipages in need
Wikipedia is strictly buisness (mostly) so I am sending you this message for Wikipages in need.
Plain White T's needs a lot of help. It is a sketchy article.
8- inch floppy disc also needs help. There were a few notes that floppy disk was too long so I made a new article from part of that one.
-Stubs- Columbia Revolt David Garrow David Turnbull Edward Wong Jheri Curls Matt Bai Nell Irvin Painter PHASE 2 Thomas Latimer Year of the Lash
Spread the word!--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
A quick game of Whilst
Ha! Thanks for the bit of humor/humour today, I need it! As a yank, I would not edit, for example, "humour" into "humor," but I just figured we might as well use a word that works on both sides of the pond. TJRC (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you LessHeard, for your help. I was loathe to do the reverting myself, as the situation seemed designed to provoke me. All the same, I did think it was proper to seek the aid of an administrator. Much appreciated. Incidentally, it happens that we were born within days of one another. Cheers, JNW (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding User:Abtract
Appears he has violated the 3RR on Bleach, but I'm not sure if the first edit applies. And the editor has been making personal attacks and removing warnings in bad faith, see these removals. Result? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that you are "not sure if the first edit applies" indicates how your vindictive desire to see me blocked far exceeds your limited knowledge of wp rule. Abtract (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Diffs of personal attacks, [146] and [147]. Note that the user is also warring on Bleach (manga), but I have begun a discussion here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is interesting that you say I am warring but it never occurs to you that so are you and you were the first to revert on both pages ... a particularly insensitive action unless you want to stir it up again ... plus the fact that you continue to stalk me. Abtract (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- What is with you and accusations? How is watchlist hunting considered stalking? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- And yet another attack. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. Could you please tell the user to stop attacking me and calling me a "stalker"? That's all I ask. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 13:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- User:Collectonian has spread a few ideas to the users Redrocket and Sephiroth BCR. Were you aware? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. Could you please tell the user to stop attacking me and calling me a "stalker"? That's all I ask. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 13:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- And yet another attack. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- What is with you and accusations? How is watchlist hunting considered stalking? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is interesting that you say I am warring but it never occurs to you that so are you and you were the first to revert on both pages ... a particularly insensitive action unless you want to stir it up again ... plus the fact that you continue to stalk me. Abtract (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Diffs of personal attacks, [146] and [147]. Note that the user is also warring on Bleach (manga), but I have begun a discussion here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration
Thanks for your interest. I am willing for you to arbitrate (provided your are not a Manchester Uniter fan). I will not be posting again at Bleach etc so that should not delay matters. Over to you but in your own time. Abtract (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Using the time while you watch Chelsea beat Liverpool to good advantage, I would like to make Sess an offer to avoid arbitration and pave the way for a golden future. "Let's forget all that has gone before and act as though we were the best of friends in the future. So, everything that happened and was said previously is in the past; we start afresh with assistance and cooperation in mind; we never revert each other; we don't change a format designed by the other without really good reason; we don't look at each other's contribution list; we don't make personal comments about each other and we work on the premise that the other is acting absolutely in good faith. I act towards you as I would want you to treat me and vice versa. I am sure you want the best for wp, as do I so let us use all our energy on that and not waste it on each other." :) Abtract (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- That doesn't make up for your continued personal attacks. Many times you have "apologized", yet I do not see the slightest change in your behaviour. If anything, you should be blocked for attacking others after receiving a final warning, but that's just me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Say it ain't so
As someone who, in my opinion, is one of the more sensible adminstrators, I'm rather shocked that you support more erosion of the encyclopedia in favor of the ill-conceived BLP panic. Well, it doesn't change my overall impression, which is that you are an exceptional administrator! I think we need more rational, thoughtful persons like yourself, not less. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Erosion is a natural process, whereas corrosion is frequently a by product of an imperfect process... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
templating users
There is no ban on templating users because they have been here a long time.
They still don't know how to behave. They were wiping out an article when the proper way was to discuss and AFD. After much fighting, they've stopped. AFD discussion I can live with (even if it is deleted in the end, which I oppose). Breaking the rules and using the excuse "I am experienced user) is no excuse.
The Malia Obama article is actually better than tons of trivial articles like FC and bands. Watchingobama (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Except that Tvoz is a very prominent Wikipedia editor, having been mentioned in numerous articles about Wikipedia election-related articles. Therefore, your accusations towards her are unwarranted and uncalled for, and you should do more to assume good faith. Grsztalk 21:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out exactly what my inclusion there meant. Do you suspect me of something? Or just pointing out that I also think that White Cat is a part of the problem?Kww (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mykungfu (6th)
Thanks for your response and clarification. Would you then take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mykungfu (6th)? This guy is clearly using several socks & IPs to circumvent a ban.-RoBoTamice 03:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I shall let this slide. I am willing to provide assistance, but don't think I should be relied upon to be available at any particular time or on any particular subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
my emails to users
I would like to assure you that I in no way solicited my unblock. I was in communications with all of the users you gave diffs too - and some others - but the focus of the email dialogue was on an AC appeal, which was sent to the AC. You also seem to be unaware of some other block logs; [148] [149]. Please note that I currently feel very constrained in my ability to participate in these discussions and certainly do not wish to seem to be in conflict with the terms of Ryan's unblock. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 08:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but there is sufficient references to outside communications for White Cat to draw a conclusion that does not depend on a bad faith interpretation; and that is the point I was trying to make to Ryan. As for the Cool Cat block log - it is pretty historical, and the current account is pretty exemplary. If you can match that in your new access to WP then it will be to the good. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Understood. I'm quite sure that there is lots of off-wiki communications and I've generally taken a dim view of it; i.e. I expect that there's a lot of quiet planning occurring. The CAMERA issue is only one high profile example. I have almost no experience with off-wiki communications; I typically didn't have email enabled on accounts, indeed, I didn't on this account until I was asked to. This, I think, has not worked to my advantage in the past because others, many others, use off wiki-communications extensively. This resulted in my having relatively few folks who understood where I was coming from when issues arose. Anyway, pleased to meet you, my talk page is open, as is email. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 09:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
re User:152.157.78.104 reported to AIV
Yes, I'm sure I have the right user. There was vandalism on J. J. that wasn't caught. I reverted it just today. And anyway, see their contributions. All (or most, I forget) are unconstructivve. If you need to respond, do so on my talk page. Thanks. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 19:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity...
Why was 207.28.98.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked today for edits made over a week ago? I don't see any indication that he was likely to return today. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Probably because I checked the time of the last warning today against the time of the next edits... without checking the date. I had a quick look at the deleted contribs to see if I could fib my way out - but the one edit was yesterday a year ago anyway! In truth, I made a mistake. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I read your comment on the noticeboard. The problem is not content dispute. The articles always indicated that the people in question are Shi'a Muslims, until a few weeks ago, an anon changed this in many articles and removed the sources. Every time someone would revert these edits, User:Smsarmad would change it back. First, he argued that the infobox should indicate the religion and not the denomination. When I told him that every other infobox showed the denomination, he decided to switch it from Shi'a Islam to Sunni Islam without adding reliable sources of his own, even though the Bhutto family, in particular, is a known Shi'a family in Pakistan just as the Kennedy family is a known Roman Catholic family, or the Rothschild's a known Jewish family, meaning that its religious affiliation is not subject to debate and any edit changing the denomination would be pure vandalism, mixed with religious fanaticism. I've warned him before, so there is no use to warn him again and there is nothing else to discuss. I think the proper action would be to block him, at least temporarily, because of his intentionally disruptive editing. LahoreKid (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, almost every editor on the Pakistan WikiProject is a Sunni Muslim and thus unable to be neutral on this particular subject, which is very, very sensitive in Pakistan. User:Smsarmad, who has been causing the disruption, should be blocked because he just won't cease. LahoreKid (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
FYI
Hey LessHeard. An FYI for you. A genre trolling IP that you laid a 1 week block onto (68.195.3.185 (talk · contribs)) is back from his one week block. This IP has 6 blocks so far for genre trolling and, in some cases, outright vandalism. Your 1 week block is up and guess what? The IP is right back at his old habits again. Lots of genre swapping and not one bit of talk page discussion in sight. Just thought you'd be interested. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
user Unclerufis1
Can you please look at this users contributions and block for abuse of editing privilages? Has added random wrong rubbish to inparticular articles on Georgia Christopher140691 (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at it I will report anything that I see from the user that is vandalism as I have them in my watchlist. Christopher140691 (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
AWB Backlog
hi there I wondered if you could look at the AWB approval page as there is a backlog and wondered if you could clear it as there are about 6 users awaiting approval and hasnt been looked at since 1st May 2008 many thanks Christopher140691 (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. Can you pass it on for me to someone who might know? I have left a message on the admins noticeboard but didnt get a reply. So I thought seen as you were an admin you might have a clue. Sorry for disturbing you. Christopher140691 (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Reblock
Might as well do User talk:Colourmoved as an obvious sock of User talk:Toothahead —Alex.Muller 15:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
???
Sorry, where are my unconstructive edits? --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 12:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution in Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics, Can you please also look at current discussion in Category talk:Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan. Thanks Misaq Rabab (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk:Stefan_Banach is repeatedly archived to hide the arguments opposing the chauvinistic views
There is an on-going systematic effort by User:Nihil_novi and few other extreme nationalist characters to archive the content of the discussion page Talk:Stefan_Banach.
The discussion on this page contains many arguments and references on Ukrainian roots of Stefan Banach and on his contributions to Ukrainian mathematics.
Polish chauvinists attempted to initiate the discussion of the censorship purge of the article on Banach. To create a semblance of a "vote" supporting their censorship, User:Nihil_novi attempt to hide into the archive the discussions of the Banach Ukrainian roots and his contributions to Ukrainian mathematics.
The section Stefan Banach#Contributions to Ukrainian mathematics contains important and non-redundant facts on Banach's contributions to Ukrainian science and Ukrainian mathematics in particular. There are substantial plans to continue the work on expanding this particular section, as well as other sections of Stefan_Banach.
The on-going attempts of Polish extreme nationalist characters to impede the establishment of NPOV on Banach must be stopped! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding what you wrote, i can only suspect that you hadn't read repost in my Note and below. Alternatively, i would consider your judgement one-sided and lacking impartiality.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your suspicions and considerations are your own, as are my judgement and opinion mine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to say hai
Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a new friend. Cheers, and happy editing! -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
WBOSITG's RfA
Re: Elonka's oppose reasons
(copied over from my talk page:) Hi, and thanks for this. I know it's good advice. I simply thought it might be useful to reflect on the more general concerns that Elonka raises, that I think other people share: I don't think she's the only person who believes that FAC is an intimidating process. Yes, there are probably better times and places to go over these issues, but I didn't want to ignore them completely, because they concern me also. This is not to win her (or anyone else's) support at RfA. I hope that this is not "pressing the issues" or a sign of any anxiety; rather, an acknowledgement of what I see as real and understandable frustration on her part. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Hi LessHeard vanU, I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 23:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I risk mudslinging at me
About your comment about Southern Texas, I risk the wrath of those opposed to his edits in political articles.
Since you mentioned that Southern Texas has good edits, I have proposed on ANI that Southern Texas receive a serious talk (I am willing to do it) and that he be unblocked after a week, not infinite as it now is.
We are here to build the encyclopedia so if someone is mentally ill and has multiple personalities, the constructive personality among them should be allowed to edit and help WP.
I say these things with great danger because there are those who will try to say that I am Southern Texas. I am not. I wish to prove it to you by sending you proof of my identity. Note that I mentioned the identity part a while ago (in connection with a research project that I am doing) so proving my identity has nothing to do with Southern Texas. JerryVanF (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
DS block
Hi LessHeard, on the block of David Shankbone - had you noticed that the target of the word (which was, in context "what supporting people like TFA makes you ****|look like", with stars not because I'm afraid to say it but because you didn't ;) ) has a couple of different times said it didn't bother her, and has continued to post to his page about the underlying problems? I'm not sure a week block was really called for, even though its a word that offends many people and also even though he was planning on a wikibreak. Avruch T 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I concur with Avruch; Wikipedians' cultural sensibilities vary widely--while "cunt" is universally slang and impolite, it doesn't automatically provoke horrified gasps and bouts of hand wringing among all our editors. Merkinsmum was far more concerned with David's so-called "outing" rampage than a bit of salty language concealed behind a wiklink. Also take note that David desisted after Alison threatened to block him--making your block utterly unnecessary. Finally, unless you plan on fully protecting his talk page, blocking him will not prevent Shankbone from cursing up a storm in his own user-space. You should rethink your decision.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am in question of the block of David that came 19 hours from the last action, and its reason. An active discussion is ongoing at this talk page, and your comments is requested. seicer | talk | contribs 01:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the assessment that the block might be a bit excessive. As his behavior desisted after the warning by Alison, I think the block, though well-intentioned, might have been a case of punishing a person for behavior after the behavior has stopped. Since blocking is to protect the Project, I am unsure how it needs to be protected from a behavior that no longer threatens or violates the rules. As the c-word is used quite often in the UK (towards both men and women), it might be less sexist than is normally interpreted by an American audience. Granted, it doesn't excuse the behavior, but other people who drop worse insults get less block time and often just warnings. A block of a week seems pretty excessiove, especially when we consider how productive DS is for the Project. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- I am in question of the block of David that came 19 hours from the last action, and its reason. An active discussion is ongoing at this talk page, and your comments is requested. seicer | talk | contribs 01:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Close this here; DS is unblocked, further comment is at DS's talkpage and the ANI thread - where I will comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks for letting me know. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 13:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
RFA Thanks
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I’m sorry to have taken you by surprise; sometimes I forget people can’t see me through the screen. Probably just as well, you’d notice that I’ve neglected to brush my hair since 7 a.m., and you can’t see the mess of paperwork on the desk either. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- And thanks for the Edit Summary of the Day![151] That odd sputtering sound you heard was the tea going up my nose when I read it. Risker (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
RfA thank-spam
BTW, regarding the edit summaries - my mainpage summaries have always been very close to 100%. The red you may have seen in my edit summary table is strictly due to edits in my sandbox, where I don't always bother to leave a summary (not much point, since I'm the only one who reads that page). Just thought I'd clear that up :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Explain
"re block template placed on User talk:74.79.50.254
Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Impersonating an administrator and/or using a template inappropriately are violation of the principles of Wikipedia.
I also note the accusation leveled in the section above. I therefore also further warn you in respect of your disruptive recent actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)"
What is that about? Look at his talk page, I placed a block template after his LAST WARNING. I think I acted appropriately...
Perhaps a misunderstanding?
RfA thanks!
|
RfA: Many thanks | |
| Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
Peace
Thanks for saying something pleasant about me on AN/I. I hope this means that our previous friction has been dissipated and forgiven and that we are now on good terms. This is my desire. Thank you for moving on from the whole (past) episode in the spirit in which you did. I have seen you act as a good and conscientious admin since then and trust your abilities. Sincerely, –Mattisse (Talk) 20:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, and yes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Abtract
A second request for comment has been filed for User:Abtract at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract. As someone listed as having attempted to aid in the situation, and whom he agrees helped him, I wanted to make you aware of the RfC in case you wished to make any comments regarding it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Andreasegde
His achievements? They're worthless if he misbehaves so much. Please block this user or I am leaving Wikipedia out of harassment. I can't tolerate his attacks anymore. Ultra! 16:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- I thank you, LessHeard vanU, for pointing this out. I find it humourous (and very interesting) for a certain editor to put down my contributions in a such a way: "worthless if he misbehaves so much". That made me laugh.
- This user is very clever. He is like the school bully, who is the ultimate macho, but when someone gives him one on the nose in retalition, he goes crying to the Headmaster: "Please block this user or I am leaving Wikipedia out of harassment". Oh, how clever...
- I wil not troll through edits and give links, because all one has to do is look at the Macca page to see the trend. He cut Macca's article to pieces because he said it was needed (which forced 'Vera, Chuck and Dave' to leave the project) and then added stuff about McCartney's supposed death, and a photo of a Macca impersonator. I deleted it, and he reverted it. (Tvoz agreed with my deletion, BTW).
- This person is a vandal, but he's really good. Block me if I am wrong.--andreasegde (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers for alerting me to this LVTY. I've dealt with pur fairweather friend in the past and been through much the same schtik. It is either unfortunate (or hilarious: I can't decide) that you are not an admin and, as such cannot block Edge; meaning if Ultra is a man of his word he will have to leave wikipedia out of harassment --Crestville (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I suck at anachronyms :)--Crestville (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Less heard is an admin, Cresty, and I quiver in my socks at the thought of it. :) The funny thing is, I said I was on a break so I wouldn't get involved in accusations and tit-for-tatting. I'm doing something wrong here, methinks. :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Less, but you get the first:
OK, I've had enough of this. Will someone PLEASE tell this user (Ultraviolet scissor flame) to stop? He has had his bit of fun with Paul McCartney, but he needs to be told that this can not go on. Just look at what he is doing now... I truly believe that he has a personal bias against McCartney, and pretends to be a "newbie", but as anyone can see, he is not. This message will posted on various pages. --andreasegde (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!
Mark,
Thank you so much for your quick action in reply to my notice on User:Eurovisionman. I will also follow your advice to use appropriate headers should I ever (and I hope I won't) have to bother the Administrators' Noticeboard.
Kind regards,
PrinceGloria (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- And now he's back as an anon URL! How did I know... :( PrinceGloria (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please see edit histories and talk pages for Isis Gee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and For Life (Isis Gee song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for what I find rather blatant sockpuppetry. Do I need to write some lenghty sockpuppetting suspicion report or can the issue be resolved in a quicker way? Oh, please see the edit histories of "new" users that have appeared in the articles' talk pages to see for what I find evidence or at least strong clues. Excuse me for bothering you, but you already know the issue... PrinceGloria (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mark, thank you for your kind words - I do not feel I deserve any kind of congratulations or thanks, I guess both you and the other admins involved are entitled to another big Thank You from the humble myself for taking my desperate, and rather lousy, attempts at fending off Eurovisionman seriously and taking the issue further. PrinceGloria (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
RFA
Thanks for the kind words and the advice on my talkpage. The extra buttons seem bewildering and a bit scary, so you can be sure I won't be swinging to hard. I think I would just hit myself! --Slp1 (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Vladimir Putin
Here is a follow up to an incident you reviewed about 10 days ago: Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Muscovite99_reported_by_Kulikovsky. Kulikovsky (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Both of these users have been battling over the introduction to the Vladimir Putin article for nearly six months. Their assertions and criticisms are all detailed ad nauseum in the later segments of text, and various editors will attempt to shorten the intro down from being several paragraphs long, only to find it reverted or re-lengthened by one or the other a short time later. Something needs to be done, but I wouldn't say a unilateral banning of one user over the other is going to turn the trick. I worry that a full-protect is the only way to bring that one under control. Ender78 (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I had to respectfully disagree with the analysis of Ender78. My comments can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vladimir_Putin.2C_editors_Muscovite99_and_Kulikovsky. Also, Ender78 made a factual mistake. Since 1 Jan till 30 Apr, inclusive, I made only 3 edits in the article. In December I made more, like a dozen, perhaps, but those had nothing to do with introduction. Also, I believe the only thing I re-added in May was some economical data, which AFAIR only two editors explicitly wanted to remove: Muscovite99 and Biophys. I doubt very much their motive was to shorten the intro. They both seem to be allergic to any positive info about Putin. More importantly that economy growth is what mainstream media presents as Putin's main achievements. If not that, I personally would not do it. To me it seems oil prices helped Russian economy more than Putin policies, but that is my personal opinion and I keep it out of the article. Kulikovsky (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I can confirm that it seems that the edit war over Putin is mostly ideological on the part of Muscovite, but I was not willing to surf through hundreds of diffs to track where that became a problem. The only thing I noted was that there is an extremely high correlation of those two users battling each other since December. In any event, it appears that the controversy has died down, for now. Kulikovsky, I'd put myself in the same category you're asserting for yourself, but that Putin article is getting seriously out of control even beyond the introductory paragraphs. Personally, I tend to use the template established by US President biographies as a guideline for how to treat other world leaders, and by that standard the Putin article is getting seriously bloated and unfairly burdened by the bias of all given sides. Let's try to get that article streamlined down into a good wiki article that doesn't overlook anything good or bad about the guy, eh? Cheers. Ender78 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. With a reservation about "an extremely high correlation", of course :-) Cheers! Kulikovsky (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I can confirm that it seems that the edit war over Putin is mostly ideological on the part of Muscovite, but I was not willing to surf through hundreds of diffs to track where that became a problem. The only thing I noted was that there is an extremely high correlation of those two users battling each other since December. In any event, it appears that the controversy has died down, for now. Kulikovsky, I'd put myself in the same category you're asserting for yourself, but that Putin article is getting seriously out of control even beyond the introductory paragraphs. Personally, I tend to use the template established by US President biographies as a guideline for how to treat other world leaders, and by that standard the Putin article is getting seriously bloated and unfairly burdened by the bias of all given sides. Let's try to get that article streamlined down into a good wiki article that doesn't overlook anything good or bad about the guy, eh? Cheers. Ender78 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Muscovite99 is not the only user engaged in edit-warring and non-consensual content removal. Hereby I request that you clarify (on appropriate talk pages, such as Talk:Vladimir Putin and User talk:Muscovite99) whether your warning regarding non-consensual content removal is applicable to other editors, or only Muscovite99 is singled out for that purpose. He got two blocks from you, so I think it is fair enough to ask now. Colchicum (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- While I have no doubt LessHeard vanU will reply to this, I would like to make a few points nevertheless. It is true, Muscovite99 was not the only editor deviating from WP guidelines while working on the article. But there is a question of degree. He was a champion labeling other editors changes as "vandalism". I do not think there was any other editor working on the article who
would bewas as rude as him. I do not think there was any other editor who received as many warnings. I do not think there was any other editor who showed as little respect to those warnings. Should we be surprised that when he got a very serious and specific warning he ignored it as well? He was warned in very direct language that if he does X, he gets blocked. Yet he did X.
- I would humbly suggest you asking yourself if you liked edits he did.
- Also, your statement that "[h]e got two blocks from" LessHeard vanU seems to be mistaken. I know of only one. If that is the case, I think your apologies would be entirely appropriate. Just my 2c. Please feel free to make comments related to me and not related to LessHeard vanU on my talk page. Best! Kulikovsky (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Frankly, I didn't mean anybody specifically, so this is certainly more related to LessHeard vanU than to you. Large-scale edit-warring and content removal are obvious from the history of the article. As there is nothing similar to consensus on the talk page, every case of content removal should be considered non-consensual, and if it is blockable, much more blocks should have been issued. Let me remind you that Muscovite99 has been blocked for non-consensual content removal, not for incivility. Colchicum (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I performed the one block, but no apology is needed.
- My perspective on this matter is as follows, I acted on the basis of an earlier report to WP:AN regarding a particular individual, and have acted in regard to that particular individual. I was not asked, and did not, look into the overall situation regarding the Putin article or any edit warring by other parties. While it is often the case that it takes two parties to make an edit war my very brief review of the actions of one individual showed edit warring against two or more editors. This made me suspect that the consensus was with the content remaining, and this suspicion was strengthened by the fact the offending editor was not using talk pages or even appropriate edit summaries (over than "vandalism" involving removing text with inline citations, etc.), and was performing exactly the same edits that had got them previously blocked. Also to be taken into account was the fact that I had already warned the editor not to perform these edits, from when I originally reviewed the matter.
- If there is a dispute about content, discuss it on the talkpage or open a RfC. If there is edit warring, make a report to WP:3RR. If there are one or more individuals who are more zealous than most in edit warring take it to WP:AIV or one of the admin noticeboards. In this case the last option was taken, and I acted upon it. This does not, of course, disallow any of these options being exercised in respect of different parties or points.
- Admins don't "do" content disputes, we enforce WP policy when violations are brought to our attention. We, as part of the community, trust the community to act to resolve any editing issues. It is the community that is both judge and prosecutor (and defence) primarily when it comes to disputes where admins take on the extra role of jailor/executioner when found necessary. Obviously, it doesn't always work like that - sometimes an admin cannot be found to enact the will of the community, and more rarely an admin will legitimately act outside of the communities decisions - but that is the basis of the role.
- I hope this explains both my actions, and inactions, in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Frankly, I didn't mean anybody specifically, so this is certainly more related to LessHeard vanU than to you. Large-scale edit-warring and content removal are obvious from the history of the article. As there is nothing similar to consensus on the talk page, every case of content removal should be considered non-consensual, and if it is blockable, much more blocks should have been issued. Let me remind you that Muscovite99 has been blocked for non-consensual content removal, not for incivility. Colchicum (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
my RfA - Ta!
Thanks for supporting my RfA, which went through 93/12/5. I'll be steadfast in this trust the en.Wikipedia community has given me. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
ANI
Thanks, but this was not quite what I was looking for. It would be good to get your opinion, and that of others, on whether protection was appropriate. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case
Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Reply
Thanks for the message. Hopefully it is only a bored student, or security guard / cleaner during the Bank Holiday Weekend that is doing the vandalism. With a bit of luck the University IT staff will see the warnings and take action themselves. Richard Harvey (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't really know which should be the primary, but User:Eurovisionman seems to be the lead character in the edit war (and the first to get blocked) and the one I named the case after. Either way, I guess. Don't actually remember what the policy is anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh thank god. The amount of protests, combined with the number of socks, was making me doubt it myself. I'm glad that's taken care of. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Test edits or Vandal account :)
Hi , thanks for replying to my report. I guess you are right when you say they look like test edits :) Still, I thought that a recently opened acount with only vandalism edits to its name was classified a vandalism-only account and therefore subject to immediate blocking. I would be grateful if you could shed some light on this, thanks. FelisLeoTalk! 20:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Conflict on The Cure page
Hello, I'm the user, Carliertwo. I posted this contribution[152] in january on The Cure page. That contribution has been accepted for months by everyone til 2 weeks ago [153] when the user Wesleydoods (talk) claimed this statement was not relevant anymore. Since, Wesley has been constantly forced his way by withdrawing it again and again. His arguement is this statement was "not necessary". It's all the contrary. In fact, this statement of Robert Smith is relevant 'cse it reveals why Smith had changed of musical style after 1979. It's the only time that Smith stated it in that particular way, he weighs his words plus, this is what he thinks of it in 2003, 24 years after it happened. Smith clearly stated here what was the impetus that provoked the change of musical change. Other point, I'd like to underline that User wesleyDodds seems to be partial as he posted all the statements from Apter, pg. book (see the "references" in the Cure'article), an instance of the statement he put [154]. Wesley also seems to deny that next to "Welcome to Wikipedia", there's this sentence on the front page "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". So, I'd like that my contribution, accepted by anyone since january stays as it is. I tried to convince that user by many posts but he refused accepting it. Now, I contact you as an administrator to help us. Carliertwo (talk). 14:48, 28 may 2008
A decent protest against an unjustified blocking
You have initiated a block on my account yesterday following a complaint from a notorious user who is using the DHCP capabilities of the Caltech network to remove what he calls BS from the pages he does not like - of course in the name of the science. Did you actually take a look what he removed from Greer's page or sided with him as soon as you read his arguments. Of course if you know each other already then I don't have any chance to push my agenda. He removed 3 UNRELATED sections(1: alleged reversed engineered ufo technology in possession of the government 2: Greer's new Orion Project 3: A note that Randy was unable to debunk the written statements of Greer's military and government witnesses). As for the fact watch the following video with the testimonies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk Could you please comment on this? I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
A part of this alleged secrecy/suppression is to complicate the surfacing of "fully independent" third party confirmations. However to counterbalance this problem Greer presented government and military witnesses who held top security clearances and were in highly respected positions(John Callahan -> former FAA Head of Accidents & Investigations). How can you dismiss such a testimony as fake or lie? The mainstream media(CNN)also reported this event and it was watched by millions of people on the Internet. We are moving on a fine line here between confirmed and unconfirmed, aren't we?I-netfreedOm (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Just for the record: I haven't used an other user name for the changes that were made recently on Greer's page. I'm trying to abide by the rules of Wikipedia. My next question to you is about the user with whom I disagree with on the discussed subjects. He states that he intentionally did not create a user account(see my talk with him) so that he can delete content freely in Wikipedia without the burden of having discussions and consensus on disputed subjects. Is this really the way to go and if so - by tolerating it - isn't Wikipedia discourages people to have a real account through which the "game" can be played fairly?I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have not created an account so that I do not have to deal with people such as Greer's apologist outside of Wikipedia. I lack patience in this regard. Sorry if this is bothering you. 131.215.64.195 (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- In answer to you both, WP allows "anonymous" editing by editors via ip accounts. The reason given by 131.215.64.195 is regarded as a perfectly valid reason for not creating an account, although there is no need to give a reason. The benefits of having a named account are many, but do not effect the ability to edit the encyclopedia. Restricting editing to only those who choose to open accounts does not seem to be something that will happen in the near future, so we just have to proceed as we are. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Suspected sock puppet
I suspect that User:Trysty is a sock puppet of User:Muscovite99 who is currently blocked. Activity spikes of Trysty correlate well with two last blocks of Muscovite99. Trysty's articles of interest are about the same; and he inserts the same type of content as Muscovite99. Please let me know if I should report my suspicions somewhere else. Thank you. Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think you are looking for WP:SSP. I haven't created a report there, so I cannot help you. If you are also unable to create a report I suggest you copy the above message to WP:ANI, commenting on your difficulty, and see if a friendly (and tech minded) editor can help you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is now confirmed that Muscovite99 used a sock puppet Trysty. This how he evaded two blocks. Regards, Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC).
Mantanmoreland protections
Don't forget Securities fraud and add the template to its talk page, if you don't mind. It was being edited extensively by Bassettcat. When I get home I will scroll through the rest of his contribs and see if any other articles fit into the pattern. Thanks! Risker (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Zackkelly
Thanks for the feedback. I don't believe in good faith with people who continue to vandalize after not only having been final warned, but previously blocked, but YMMV. Corvus cornixtalk 23:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations!
Vandalism at Powers and abilities of the Hulk
Can you undo the unconstructive edits of Jtrainor and CMJ147kitty? The sysop that had protected the page didn't notice the changes. In particular, the vandal Jtrainor had destroyed the #references section. Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have notified the administrator. (PS: You have watchlisted the page yes? Seems to get a lot of traffic, more bad than good.) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sesshomaru, you need to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and not accuse everyone reverting you of vandalism. Jtrainor (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This offensive comment made by the user have been removed. A page protection may be needed to prevent further disruption. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Funniest thing I've read all day
I giggled. Thanks for being funny! Seraphim♥Whipp 21:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Seraphim♥Whipp has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
All My Goodness
Yes, I would say that banning is a little harsh here. :) Sorry, I was cleaning up the article when you deleted it. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Arb log
I added your block of Xasha to the Digwuren logs. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser Xasha=Molodopodo
Can you ask to verify please? I'm watching this user and he presents the same behaviour and the same pattern with Moldopodo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.145.163.228 (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding User:Redsox502
Just got a question because I'm new to my Wiki account. What does it matter if I delete the messages on my userpage? And what does it mean that you are "blocking me"? Redsox502 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Request
I've noticed that you're active, and I'd like to ask for a favor, if you have the time and inclination to humor me. Could you please take a screenshot of what you currently see on http://ro.wikipedia.org/ and upload it here under a temporary name? (I will make sure to delete it later on.) I don't even want to mention why I need this (canvassing concerns), but I need someone completely neutral to do it, as to avoid any possible accusations of... well, whatever, you know how it is. Should you choose not to, please decline explicitly. Thank you! --Gutza T T+ 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, thank you for responding. Now I see you're an European, RSVP should've been enough. :-) --Gutza T T+ 21:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Why did you undo my revision on "The Beatles?"
I know they had a different name before 1960, but they were still the same band. As far as I know, it still counts if the band has a different name.
Example: Wikipedia's article for Linkin Park. They have been active since 1996, but before 1999, they were named "Super Xero", "Xero", and "Hybrid Theory" during a period of frantic name-searching.
Example 2: Wikipedia's article for Maroon 5. They have been active since 1995, but before 2001, they were named "Kara's Flowers".
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am only trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Most of the other sites I have visited listed The Beatles as being active from 1957/58 to 1970/71.
Tezkag72 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is a dispute about the Beatles founding at Talk:Paul McCartney; if you have anything to add to this debate please do! MartinSFSA (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
All is good. Toddst1 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Zosimo Montez
Since you were the closing admin, could you add all three of these to User:Pinoybandwagon's list of known sockpuppets? He just refuses to get it, and is incredibly inept in his work. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hopefully I have done so... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Better late than never!
I just noticed after our convo at AIV that I hadn't thanked you for your participation in my RFA (I thought I had gotten to everyone). Anyhow - thanks...! You may be interested in checking out my in-depth RFA anaylsis where I touched on your comments and set out how I plan to improve and diversify my mainspace contribs. (Of course, all this vandal-whacking has really taken a toll on that!). I've also left some templated thank spam below. cheers, xenocidic (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support
I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 
13
2 
. Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).
To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).
To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Wikipedia as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)
Sincerely,
~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, cool. I think it is great when somebody I did not !vote support for does get the nod - I never oppose or go neutral without agonising over it, and if enough of my colleagues are not convinced by my arguments for the candidate to succeed it means that my concerns are not that relevant = the new admin deserves the mop. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Thanks for contributing your two cents (or pence, for me) and for remaining level-headed while everyone else was userbox-obsessed. I'll be reapplying in 4-6 months after more time spent working on articles and so on, so i'll hopefully see you then :). Cheers again. Ironholds 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Dispute within Opposition to trade unions article
Hi, I saw that you've been in contact with User:Larklight concerning an AIV he attempted to bring against me. As you pointed out to him, this is an edit dispute and not a vandalism issue. However, I don't see any chance of an amicable settlement, as the issue pits me against a group of ideologically motivated and like-minded editors, and not just on this one article, either.
As it turns out, I was the one who actually initiated the Rfc for the article in the first place, but it received almost no attention from neutral parties, save for one dissent from an editor who provided no reasoning. Given the lack of interest in that Rfc, and the almost impossibility for mutual consensus between myself and the editors in question, would a request for arbitration be in order? J.R. Hercules (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Presently, I am suggesting a relisting of the RfC - I didn't find it in a quick look on the RfC sub-page - to get more third party opinion. It is far too early to consider Arbitration, in my view. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at Talk:Opposition to trade unions#Request for comment now, it may have taken a while, but it certainly has received some attention. CosineKitty (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
New admin tool?
Wow, where do you sign up for the lightning bolts?[155] And are they only useful against Cornish editors? I was just down the road from you back in January, when I visited Plymouth. Will the lightning bolt work against Plymothians? Are you impressed that I know that term? :-) Risker (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, if Less heard isn't, then I certainly am.--andreasegde (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
My Edits on User talk:Ultraviolet scissor flame
Acknowledged. I just realised that I've violated the very policy I was attempting to uphold. Thanks for telling me to keep in line. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 14:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Constant
Some may come and go, and may return, for awhile, but you are a constant, and a brick (an old Roman phrase which is meant as a compliment and not in the Pink Floyd sense) and I salute you. Ta, 'r kid. --andreasegde (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
joining the ranks of the admins
Invite to review a set of articles
Hi there. You participated in this ANI thread. I picked out the names of some editors I recognised, or who had extensive comments there, and I was wondering if you would have time to review the articles mentioned in the thread I've started here, and in particular the concerns I've raised there about how I used the sources. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a final count of 42 supporting, 2 opposing and 2 neutral. I would like to thank Keeper76 especially for the great nomination. I look forward to assist the project and its community as an administrator. Thanks again, Cenarium Talk 01:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Rfa thanks
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA. The Rfa was successful with 64 Support and 1 Neutral. None of this would have happened without your support. I would also like to thank my nominator Wizardman and my sensei/co-nom bibliomaniac15--Lenticel (talk) 09:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC) |
How to prevent MiszaBot from archiving
Just FYI this edit did not have the desired effect; MiszaBot will archive based on any timestamp within the thread. In order to prevent MiszaBot from archiving a thread, just add a ridiculously futuristic hidden timestamp, like so:
<!-- 00:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
^ This is so MiszaBot ignores this thread -->
Not sure if this works for other bots, but it works for Misza. cheers, xenocidic (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Bonaparte on rampage
Is 200eventempty (talk · contribs) supposed to be a new user? Better have a look at it.Xasha (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked for disruption and as a probable sock. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- 'eck, I'm rarely so good that these things happen when I am not aware of it... ;~) Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry, he's back again creating havoc as 1largeatom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).Xasha (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- 'eck, I'm rarely so good that these things happen when I am not aware of it... ;~) Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Photos
User Shillabarquet has uploaded photos of Jane Asher and Pattie Boyd as GNU Free Documentation License photos, but they look like internet photos to me. What do you think?--andreasegde (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
can you block another sock of blocked user?
User_talk:Xtreme_Blaster is a new sock of User:Pinoybandwagon, and he is repeating again the same behaviours that got him blocked, namely trying to rename all philippine radio stations with the brand name instead of callsign. Now he is trying to source information from websites that don't look at all like a professional website [156] (not the first time that one of his socks is caught making a hoax article, see the userpages of the several socks for how he claims to make half the of the things true, half of them false)
Relevant sockpuppet cases:
- Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Zosimo_Montez
- Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Pinoybandwagon
- Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Map_inc
--Enric Naval (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- thank you very much :) . I'll go through his contributions later, to see if he actually made some useful contribution worth preserving --Enric Naval (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Apology
I apologize for my rudeness on WP:AN today. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of bucolic....
[157] I have to admit it crossed my mind that you'd been distracted by your communal reverie, and had simply wandered off to pick a few daisies at the roadside. Or perhaps it's just too early on a Sunday morning for you? :-) Risker (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ending rhetoric with an ellipse often confuses me into forgetting my sig... LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
not#news
Apropos NOT#NEWS and live scores: I only just remembered that I had commented here. 78.34.143.49 (talk) (ex-Dorftrottel) 18:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have "stengthened" the section, and noted my actions per your link above. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:AN / BV
Re [158], I created a section of his talk page to be transcluded to AN so he could participate. Please review and make sure this is ok. –xenocidic (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Boy he sure likes pushing the envelope. So inconsequential, yet so pointless to do given his circumstances. Cheers, CP 18:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- And a third time... Cheers, CP 19:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please, man: I'm only correcting the titles, just as others do as well. Extremely sexy (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this to my attention; I do consider it pretty inconsequential, and yes also nudging at (rather than pushing) the envelope - let me put it this way; if the only edit was to alter/correct the title capitalisation then it would certainly be on the "pushy" side, but BV is also responding within the discussion. So, in this instance I am simply going to thank you for bringing this to my attention and just suggest to BV that any unilateral alteration to other peoples edits is going to be seen as being in violation of the agreed premise under which you were unblocked. Like I said, because of your past you are unable to do things like other folks (hopefully only until you can prove you are just like other folks!) and that is the consequences of your past actions. It is so much easier not to do this stuff, but if it really bugs you just post and say "uh, would it be okay to (un)capitalise the title?" and if there is no answer after a few hours then go ahead. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC) The matter of adding a space to earlier discussion is not, IMO, altering or amending another accounts edits, so in this instance I don't think it needs commenting further.
- As long as he is perfectly clear on this now, I am happy. I didn't think it was a blockable offense, even considering all this, but I'm glad that it was brought to both of your attentions and dealt with. Thanks! Cheers, CP 23:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for you trust in me, man. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thx
Hey Mark, here's a late thank you for your efforts at Euro 2008 and NOT (and also for your kind comments at AN). Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
RfA Review
Hello LessHeard vanU. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:LessHeard vanU/RfA review , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.Gazimoff WriteRead 15:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
You stinker
Yeah, I saw that message before you gave me the heads-up, and I groaned a bit ;D No worries, I think it was a good suggestion, but it will just be yet another content dispute I get involved in about a subject I don't know and don't care about. ha ha ha... 'sok though, I learn a lot that way, and I really enjoy the consensus-building process most of the time. Only problem is -- I gotta go soon and probably won't be on-wiki much until Monday. So we'll see what happens.. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- PS, I'm plagiarizing the warning at the top of your talk page. :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Disappointed
Hi,
I am a bit disappointed since I couldn't get any help from your side. Definition of Vandalism according to wikipedia is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Please understand that I am appealling against an organized vandalism by a group of people who have a history of compromising the NPOV of the CPI(M). They take turns in deleting and blanking the page and frustating the editors. I looked into the history page and realized this has been going on for many years and a lot of editors were forced to leave, banned and their well referenced and relevant edits have been removed.
Since no action has been taken against them and the victims have been penalized I suspect they may be overtly and covertly supported by some adminstrators.
All I am asking is to do is look into the history of CPI(M) and see the pattern and vandalism for yourself.
I have read many articles on Wiki and have seen that almost all articles provide space for the opposite point of view. Why is the opposite point of view getting deleted in CPI(M)Sindhian (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- It should be noted that there really is - a vast right wing conspiracy against Sindhian. I just got back from our daily vast right wing conspiracy meeting on Sindhian's recent edits. We had a vote and decided that Sindhian just might be a POV pusher. His edits speak for themselves - as well as the attack article he created in, Declassified documents related to the Sino-Indian war, which Sindhian used to attack the CPI (M). As it was an attack article, it was speedly deleted according to Wikipedia policy. My hope is that this pattern of attacks, as demonstrated in Declassified documents related to the Sino-Indian war - does not continue. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- If I am seeing any vandalism, it is the edit warring of the insertion of anti CPI(M) material under non existant, poor or biased references. Firstly, and correctly, it is not per MoS to have sections entitled "Controversy/Allegations of... etc", unless it is the controversy/allegation that makes the article notable. It does not appear to be the case here, the CPI(M) being notable as the most left wing (I am suspicious anyway of anyone who uses the term "leftist" perjoratively, but that is why I have no intention of editing this article) political grouping existing within the worlds largest democracy, and being the party of government in 3 of India's states. From what I have reviewed, comment upon specific controversies and allegations of various kinds are placed within those areas it affects - either in the timescale sections or area sections. Placing all the allegations, or worse even repeating them, in one section devoted to that aspect is contrary to WP:DUE WEIGHT (there is no proposed "triumphs and good work of CPI(M)", for instance.) While some of the criticism might be worked into some of the sections to which it relates, I am not seeing a generally socialist biased article that needs a section detailing just how "nasty" the CPI(M) really is.
- The above is my tuppence worth, and please feel free to include it in any discussion on the article talkpage (I will be very irritated if anything is cherry picked and then taken out of context, though). My last comment to Sindhian, which I would not particularly wish to see repeated elsewhere, is that I do not think it a good idea to attempt to portray a content dispute as vandalism. There are 3RR/Edit warring violations on both sides, but I don't think swinging the banhammer will help matters here. However, if one side exhausts the patience of any neutral party who is attempting to resolve matters I think that the resultant sanctions will severely hamper that factions efforts to edit the article.
- To Ism schism; sarcasm does no-ones argument any favours. If there is apparent bias or pov viewpoint it will be obvious to the majority; however, as Sindhian comments, there is nothing to disallow a bias or viewpoint as long as it is referenced in reliable third party sources - that is the nub of the dispute to concentrate on, rather than the bias or viewpoint itself. While pov warriors (of any description) can be a cause of conflict within an article, it is sometimes the case they can bring perspectives, sources and content that would otherwise not happen. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Re:
[159] Is it?Xasha (talk) 23:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is not good to infer either Soviet or Nazi sympathies in any Eastern European related article. Too much recent history has left scars which are best not casually re-opened. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- So why when others do it, nothing happens, but hen I do it I get an AN thread and block threats?Xasha (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Because others are more adept at gaming the system? I have had some dealings with complaints against you over the last few days, and have warned (and in one case blocked) some editors attempting to silence "opponents" such as you by forum shopping for blocks - but it would be so much easier if you didn't provide them with ammunition. All editors who contribute to Eastern European subject articles are covered by the Digwuren RfARB, so any violation by anybody can be reported. If violations are being missed, it is because of a lack of reporting. Uninvolved admins, who are the ones permitted to enact sanctions, are unlikely to be patrolling the articles on the off-chance someone is offending... So, the answer is that next time you feel that there is bias or extreme POV being presented do not respond with accusations of nationalistic sensitivity but report it to WP:ANI. Thems are the conditions what apply, in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Last time I tried to talk with an admin about it [160] I was told off because my "claims" (actually just quotes from other user's comments) are not supported by the diffs. So I'm actually losing the trust in objective admin insight. Today I've accidentally saw that this seems to be a problem even for the higher decisional forums. That's sad...Xasha (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- So all that WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY is just a marketing stunt after all.Xasha (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Last time I tried to talk with an admin about it [160] I was told off because my "claims" (actually just quotes from other user's comments) are not supported by the diffs. So I'm actually losing the trust in objective admin insight. Today I've accidentally saw that this seems to be a problem even for the higher decisional forums. That's sad...Xasha (talk) 00:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Because others are more adept at gaming the system? I have had some dealings with complaints against you over the last few days, and have warned (and in one case blocked) some editors attempting to silence "opponents" such as you by forum shopping for blocks - but it would be so much easier if you didn't provide them with ammunition. All editors who contribute to Eastern European subject articles are covered by the Digwuren RfARB, so any violation by anybody can be reported. If violations are being missed, it is because of a lack of reporting. Uninvolved admins, who are the ones permitted to enact sanctions, are unlikely to be patrolling the articles on the off-chance someone is offending... So, the answer is that next time you feel that there is bias or extreme POV being presented do not respond with accusations of nationalistic sensitivity but report it to WP:ANI. Thems are the conditions what apply, in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- So why when others do it, nothing happens, but hen I do it I get an AN thread and block threats?Xasha (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
First Battle of El Alamein
Hi. Not sure why you have blocked this article. I know there is a problem with socks but why not block the socks rather than the article? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 10:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll wait until the protection expires. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 17:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I was assuming good faith, but having seen when the account was created, I smell duck. Good block. --Rodhullandemu 22:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Warning
You should really warn people before banning them over one silly incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.39.211 (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Block of Mixedupworld
On 28 June at 16:17 (UTC), you blocked the above user for 31 hours. That user was subsequently blocked indefinitely for evading your block with the puppet Martinnutini. Both are listed as suspected socks at WP:SSP#User:Nimbley6 (4th). I bring this to your attention because it is relevant to your initial block and because I hope you will take a look at the suspected sock case. -Rrius (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- PS - respond either here or by action at SSP. -Rrius (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have blocked Mixedupworld for a further week for socking/block evasion. I would now consider myself too involved to be able to process the SSP case, although it looks quite obvious to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thanks
Thanks for bringing me to my senses. I do get paranoid some times and really do become a 'pillock'. :)
Sindhian (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I was blocked ! For no reason. May be I wasn't as paranoid as I thought. I know these CPI(M) gansters well. Sindhian (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Quite quickly unblocked, though. It seems that there is some block shopping going on, but the usual result of that is that the accounts that are trying to game the system are the ones who end up sanctioned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your !vote at my RFA
Thank you, LessHeard vanU, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).
A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)
Silver surfer indeed...I'm only 41 :-P (Thanks!)
I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...
Thanks again!
CarolSpears
I'm confused--how was that abusive? I thought there was a pretty clear consensus that she should stay indefblocked. I'd added templates to userpages before and no one minded. Blueboy96 18:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- If it were found that you were placing subjective language such as massive in the templates you post, then you may quickly find that you would also be looking at long term blocks. Unless the block notice or the discussion consensus is that the reason for blocking is "massive copyright violations" then it is inappropriate to place it in the template.
- In the case of CarolSpears, there are many who do not think she is either a troll or vandal and that the problems with plagiarism/copyvio are the result of poor understanding of WP principles - but that they are not done with the intent of harming WP. It is then inappropriate to template a good faith editor who is blocked to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. If you were fully conversant with the case, you should know that CarolSpears has commented that she has felt harrassed and stalked when editing WP and, no matter what the truth is, placing such vindictive appearing templates is not conducive to the aim of making the encyclopedia a pleasant environment to edit in.
- I am not going to look into your history of templating recipients of blocks, per AGF I shall assume that when it has been previously done it has been to inveterate vandals who received an unmodified template. I hope that that will be the case in the future, too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Ban template
I appreciate that you reverted a prior attempt to template User:CarolSpears' page with a "banned by community" sign. However, I don't know if you reverted for the template, or the accompanying comment. I prefer to do as little as possible, and would like to see the template not put on her user page without community consensus, and I have no idea how these things are handled. Please put in your two cents worth (US$ pre gas hike, housing crash) if it agrees with mine that the template is not necessary at this point. (I don't understand it's purpose, anyhow--she can't edit, we're checking all of her edits, as we have no choice.) Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the discussion? I'm leaving notices at various peoples talkpages, but would prefer a centralised discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I meant to read your talk page to see if you discussed it here, but didn't, so sorry about that. There appears not to be a discussion about, but there should be. In spite of the damage she has done, I don't feel the nature of the template applies to Carol Spears and the particular ban she recieved. In spirt of her claims of being stalked, though, there is no evidence of this in her contributions history. I'm the one she accused of stalking for reverting articles out of the last 200 she edited, all plant articles, all newly created plant articles, simply per the discussion on the RFC talk page. This page, the RFC talk page, is where this discussion should take place. I will start it there, if you don't get to it first. I'm beginning to wonder about her good faith, the more damage she does by continuing to play she doesn't understand anything, but I'm unwilling to apply my change of mind in the midst of her block. --Blechnic (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I started it on AN/I.[161] --Blechnic (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I shall see what is occurring. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- She's not the one who put the "retired" on her user page, it should probably, imo, be left as she left it. However, you don't seem vindicative about this issue, and I will leave what you do up to you, so I can write about a tree. Block ban, it's beyond me. --Blechnic (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I will leave it up as it stands, as protecting it in the wrong version is part of the process around here. As for block/ban - block is a lump of wood and ban is nab spelled backwards... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed that too (I checked as I was concerned she would be unable to respond if her pages are protected). It's as good a way as any of giving her some breathing space, I suppose. EyeSerenetalk 20:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- The talkpage remains unprotected, of course. I shall continue to have it watchlisted, in case there are any more "witchburning" inclined postings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- She's not the one who put the "retired" on her user page, it should probably, imo, be left as she left it. However, you don't seem vindicative about this issue, and I will leave what you do up to you, so I can write about a tree. Block ban, it's beyond me. --Blechnic (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I shall see what is occurring. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I started it on AN/I.[161] --Blechnic (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I meant to read your talk page to see if you discussed it here, but didn't, so sorry about that. There appears not to be a discussion about, but there should be. In spite of the damage she has done, I don't feel the nature of the template applies to Carol Spears and the particular ban she recieved. In spirt of her claims of being stalked, though, there is no evidence of this in her contributions history. I'm the one she accused of stalking for reverting articles out of the last 200 she edited, all plant articles, all newly created plant articles, simply per the discussion on the RFC talk page. This page, the RFC talk page, is where this discussion should take place. I will start it there, if you don't get to it first. I'm beginning to wonder about her good faith, the more damage she does by continuing to play she doesn't understand anything, but I'm unwilling to apply my change of mind in the midst of her block. --Blechnic (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I happened by CarolSpear's talk page by one of those circuituous routes that only another Wikipedian could understand. I did end up reading the whole of her page, though I confess to being only somewhat the wiser. Following on from a statement by you, her last set of comments, for example, enumerated in 4 points, makes no sense at all to me. Well the first point makes sense but is not sensible in an environment where many edit the one and is, thus, an odd goal. Do you know whereof she speaks? What rules are hers, for example? If you don't know or don't wish to spend any more time on the matter, I will understand. This is only a matter of curiosity to me. Thank you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- My opinion is that CarolSpears is further replying to EyeSerene, and not me. Her comment #2 might be in response to ES's saying that she (CS) followed her own rules. The other responses are also likely to refer to matters mentioned by ES. Since ES was addressing CS directly I haven't read the content too carefully, but I am pretty sure that my impression is correct. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I happened by CarolSpear's talk page by one of those circuituous routes that only another Wikipedian could understand. I did end up reading the whole of her page, though I confess to being only somewhat the wiser. Following on from a statement by you, her last set of comments, for example, enumerated in 4 points, makes no sense at all to me. Well the first point makes sense but is not sensible in an environment where many edit the one and is, thus, an odd goal. Do you know whereof she speaks? What rules are hers, for example? If you don't know or don't wish to spend any more time on the matter, I will understand. This is only a matter of curiosity to me. Thank you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that's not a serious suggestion for a mentor - looks like a piss take, especially with the reference to the fact that he understands two English phrases... --Allemandtando (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- She remains indef blocked all the while. If she does manage to drive off anyone who is willing to suggest ways in which she can continue to contribute to the encyclopedia, then she enacts her own community ban. In the meantime, I am still willing to try and engage. One of us will crack, I guess... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also, please be mindful of the editors trying to correct her existing garbage. One of her major articles is being edited right now, and, yes, it's full of incorrect information--the article where she said the mountains of Central and East Africa are just like the European Alps because the mountains of northwestern Africa (a different and far more ancient by hundreds and hundreds of millions of years tectonic regime) are like the Alps. These are good editors who could be contributing to Wikipedia in other ways, but are instead deleting pages and pages of misinformation vomited through cyberspace by CarolSpears. In addition, if she can't communicate to others in English designed to convey information, how can she communicate with a mentor? A mentor of her own choosing will, imo, have to be monitored, creating more work for editors already overburdened by her "contribution." How much should Wikipedia continue to be burdened to accommodate one editor whose clean up is going to take months? --Blechnic (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- She remains indef blocked all the while. If she does manage to drive off anyone who is willing to suggest ways in which she can continue to contribute to the encyclopedia, then she enacts her own community ban. In the meantime, I am still willing to try and engage. One of us will crack, I guess... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that's not a serious suggestion for a mentor - looks like a piss take, especially with the reference to the fact that he understands two English phrases... --Allemandtando (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
(Unindent) The problems with cleaning up CS's edits will remain if she stays blocked, so it should not be a factor. I would not contemplate her being mentored by anyone who is not approved by the participants in the recent discussions, so her "choices" are limited. As regards communication, we allow non-native English speakers the benefit of the doubt so why not someone who does not (cannot) use colloquial English; it would be a matter between CS and any potential mentor how they would resolve this - and then it would be approved by "us". In the meanwhile, CS remains blocked... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- The non-English speakers I have encountered on Wikipedia are trying to communicate in English, which makes their case different.
- For the matter, "A single mentor would have to be able to mentor a fairly accomplished human being who already was getting pretty good mentoring." Her plant article mistakes in taxonomy, geography, and geology require only someone who is willing to read her sentence and the source, some of the disparaged teenage administrators could probably do it, if they simply read what she wrote and the source she wrote it from. The mistakes she makes are not the mistakes of a "fairly accomplished" plant editor, and do not require a botanist to identify, not even a particularly careful reader, so much as a willing reader. Her errors tend to be of a gross nature. Carol's claims of being a "fairly accomplished human being" in a discussion about selecting a mentor seems only to indicate she has no idea of the nature of the problems with her writing, in particular the inaccuracy. This can be the case when someone is writing so far out of their depth, as Carol's difficulties with geography appear to indicate. No need for now to seek a plant specialist. --Blechnic (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
My comment, Giano page
LH van U; re your message...this comment referred to the fact that I was somewhat taken aback by the realisation that the same Admin appeared to have made three successive blocks of increasing duration despite having become personally involved in a dispute with the person being blocked. Having had some experience of this myself and having had some such blocks reverted as "bad" I was surprised at the apparently cavalier nature of the Admin's actions. Maybe we need some behavioral training for Admins before they are let loose with such powerful weapons? (I certainly think so). Sarah777 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, it had nothing to do with the Tango case. I didn't even know that case existed. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
TESotD
LessssH vU, you are the winner of today's Tvoz's Edit Summary of the Day, an occasional award given to things that make me laugh. I just woke up, but there's no way anything will beat this! Congratulations! Tvoz/talk 14:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hahahahahaha.....you really like this award don't you! Snagged it again. I may even rename it the "How Less makes me laugh" award. But I do notice a common theme here....hmmm. Cheerio Tvoz/talk 21:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Macca question
Quick question. There is a Paul McCartney article. But there is also a Paul McCartney (solo) article. I don't know the history behind its creation (likely to cut size out of the main article which should be an FA but I digress) Anyway... the creation of the second "Solo" article duplicates all the categories found in the "main" article. The result being that Macca is listed twice in every single one of those categories. Which I think is a bit off. I was going to post this on the Beatles Project talkpage but thought I'd ask you first as one of the 'busier' members of that project. In my opinion the "solo" article should just have Category:Paul McCartney and the rest removed (I've removed the 2 guitar related ones already) to eliminate the duplication in all the other category lists. Do you concur? Or do you have a different suggection/solution? Libs (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I had a quick look at the history. The creator (I don't think it was split off, but was started as a "new" article) is fairly well known around the better known Macca article - and opinion is split on whether they are an entirely helpful influence. My choice would be to review the solo article for anything that might be useful in the standard article. If there is then there would need to be a merge. If there isn't, because it should already been included, then the content could be removed and the page converted into a redirect to Paul McCartney.
- The best way to achieve this would be to start a discussion on the Macca talkpage. I would warn you to duck if you see the name Andreasegde chiming in if you are the slightest bit nervous - and he is one of the good guys - but I think getting a consensus is the right way of going about things. If needed I can do the admin bits when a decision is made... well, I can try - I've not done a merge or redirect before.
- Although I still watch Macca and do a bit of tidy up editing on the article and other Beatles related stuff I should comment that I no longer belong to the project. If you are interested in joining it, though, I would recommend it - but you might find it monopolising your wiki time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I am very familiar with Andreasegde and his ownership did I say that? of all things Macca. Going so far as a merge and re-direct.. the thought obviously crossed my mind but I didn't want to head into those uncharted water until I at least resolved the duplicate category issue first. Not wanting to step on any toes or anything :) . I could just be bold for now and delete all the superfluous cats and then approach the other more drastic mergy/deletey thing later :) . Libs (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, no, no, Andrew is one of the good guys! Really! Just a little intense about subjects he cares about. (He happens to be one of the few I would term a "wiki mate" of mine; I have even forgiven him for driving me off the Beatles WikiProject...)
- Okay, if you are willing to boldly go ahead then, yeah, the article and related stuff seems superfluous to requirements. After all, it is a Wiki... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh I am very familiar with Andreasegde and his ownership did I say that? of all things Macca. Going so far as a merge and re-direct.. the thought obviously crossed my mind but I didn't want to head into those uncharted water until I at least resolved the duplicate category issue first. Not wanting to step on any toes or anything :) . I could just be bold for now and delete all the superfluous cats and then approach the other more drastic mergy/deletey thing later :) . Libs (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh I have a huge amount of respect for Andreasegde. The whole entire Paul McCartney failing its FA nom because it was too long and because it had too many references??? Still one of the loudest black marks on Wiki (where music pages are concerned). He didn't create the 'solo' article. But he has edited it. And now I have , *gasp*, rm'd all but one cat from the page (I left the 'Paul McCartney' category since it was the only one that fit anyways) SO if he has an issue he can voice it and I would love to hear it. Or anyone else. Drove you off the Beatles Project? I always thought that project was all happy joy joy? Other than the few people who slipped in and kept changing "The" to "the" in The Beatles. Libs (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thassthawun! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: re Alison McAtee
Sorry, I didnt realise it had lots of Google hits. I wouldnt have PROD'ed or AFD'd, many thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 07:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
"66.102.80.212" and Talk:WPIX
The IP user 66.102.80.212 (talk • contribs) -- which is being used by Carlb (talk • contribs)in an attempt to evade accountability -- has a major content-related grudge against me, and has interjected himself into all disputes I've had with other editors, minor or major, even those which don't involve him directly -- such as this stuff with WPIX. He is using that article's talk page to slander me, and for me to be unable to defend myself is not fair. He has no right to bring up my past issues (that recent ANI report was created by him, so take that for what it's worth) to bolster his claims. That sounds like a personal attack to me.
The gist of our issues is this: Carlb attempted to make major changes to various U.S. television station articles, and to television-related templates, as they relate to the upcoming switch from analog to digital broadcasting. He did so without discussing them with other editors, including myself. (Please see this section of the Wikiproject Television Stations talk page.) We asked him to discuss his changes in order to gain additional input and a consensus, but he ignored us and did what he wanted. I nominated a template he created for deletion, which passed, and assisted in reverting all other articles he changed. I also outed him for being a sockpuppet user, because he was making the same kinds of edits with both his registered name and the IP.
The talk page of any article is not the place for someone's personal problems with another editor to be aired out, and that is why I deleted his comments. There is no edit war going on with that particular talk page. The main article itself is the subject of debate over what I feel is the improper use of grammar, which other editors seem to prefer rather than what is correct.
My issues with this user are content-related, not personal. In retaliation, Carlb has made them personal. What is wrong with that picture? Rollosmokes (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- There's more to this. User:Rollosmokes has been repeatedly engaging in various revert wars - the television-related template in which he kept removing individual data fields while those fields were in use in many articles was just one small incident in a long and ongoing history. He routinely templates users with {{uw-vandalism4}} "If you vandalise Wikipedia again, you will be banned" for edits which are not vandalism but merely add info which he considered unworthy of inclusion. With long history of engaging in revert wars both in article space and in other users' userspace, he was blocked three times last year and there are multiple WP:ANI incidents involving this editor, a couple of which predate any of the issues he mentions. He has created entire categories accusing users of being "sockpuppets" in order to harass and intimidate, and seems to have a penchant for removing criticisms of his own actions as "personal attacks" while posting what are personal attacks - including reports on WP:AIV for edits which are not vandalism. If one of the pages on which he starts a revert-war is protected to stop the conflict, often he will construe the protection as an endorsement of his versions, all disclaimers notwithstanding. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations is a mess of attacks on other editors. An outside user, SilkTork, had attempted to mediate an ongoing dispute which Rollo was carrying on againt Lantana11 but Rollo was singularly uncooperative in response to the attempts to resolve this - attempts which appear to have been made by others in good faith. It's really not the proper place of someone like this to be going around threatening others with a ban from editing Wikipedia; this much, as well as the revert wars and possibly the personal attacks against various individuals, really need to stop. I'm not the only one to raise this issue.
- As for Talk:WPIX? The only reason any of this is mentioned there is that he was carrying on a revert war against multiple editors there. The page was full-protected, that protection has now expired, he has returned to making the same types of edits that caused the initial problems. That much of this is relevant to the editing of the WPIX article - even if I can't see WPIX itself from here because it's co-channel to a local station. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding user page User:GHcool...
I am copying in Neil, Gwen Gale, and LessHeard vanU, since all three of you commented here. So... what should we do? GHcool has made ut abundantly clear he doesn't want to compromise, so we either decree it acceptable, or an admin takes action. There was already a no-consensus MfD. RfC? Mediation? Any ideas? --Jaysweet (talk)
Groan!
Very punny.[162] I could imagine the wheels turning when you wrote that one. ;-) Risker (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- In my youth (and still now, as it happens) I was a fan of Siouxsie and the Banshees and other things spiky, gobby and pogoy. Now many years have passed, yet I am still a Pun Krocker. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Needs deleting and salting. Grawp's recreated it. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- East718 got it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Aji
I'm talking to slakr on IRC about this - it may simply be confusion given the rapid deletion/undeletion of that page because of the Avril troll vandalism. I saw that he got a speedy notification, and thought he had included vandalism. Sceptre (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Versus22 - Archive box
Hey, I wanted to know how you get other archive numbers (2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) into the archive box. I have the template as archive box auto=yes
Can you please tell me on my talk page if possible? The section that RobJ1981 created is fine. Thank you! Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- What archive system are you using? Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping me out! Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Re. Heads up
Thanks and yes they are being encouraged to come them to come to the articles talk page. I will do more along those lines either tonight or tommorrow. There are definite signs that this is merely a case of newbies not understanding wiki policy. Thanks again for your help. Albion moonlight (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This has been requested for unprotection. I am inclined to grant the request but given the circumstances would like your opinion. (If replying, please drop by my talk page.) Stifle (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Same for Naked short selling. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I just thought I would follow up on unprotecting the article. Cheers --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
I appreciate your clearing the recent vandalism. Thanks again.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
If he starts in on his "The CW" antics again, we'll be right back on the WP:ANI page again. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I advised him that if he stays away from that, I'll stay away from him. "Good faith" has nothing to do with it. I don't know him from Adam. All I know is that he's wrong about this "The CW" nonsense. As long as he leaves that alone, I should be able to leave him alone. The rest of his edits are about technical details about the radio and TV stations that I assume or hope he knows what he's talking about. It's when he gets into this "grammar" stuff that he gets himself in trouble. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- And speaking of "good faith", his first act if and when he comes back should be to wipe the personal attacks off his talk page. Or you could do that, as it's a rules violation, yes? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Personal attacks are against the rules. Why does he get to decide when or if to remove them? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't care what he calls me. But he named 6 others, and they might. And as User:Neil pointed out to me a couple of weeks ago, even if I don't care about a personal attack, it's against the rules and should not be tolerated. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Personal attacks are against the rules. Why does he get to decide when or if to remove them? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- And speaking of "good faith", his first act if and when he comes back should be to wipe the personal attacks off his talk page. Or you could do that, as it's a rules violation, yes? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
He's back, and promising to resume the edit war. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- And having been sufficiently rebuked for daring to continue to speak out against this guy's behavior, I've had enough of this topic. I have marked the issue resolved, removed my comments from his talk page, and am no longer watching either his page or his edits. He wins. If our paths never cross again, it will be too soon. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- (You have archived your page, so I shall respond here) Him or me? Ah, well... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, I mean him, not you. :) Currently there may be only one or two articles he and I have in common, but not for this issue. And for safety's sake, I won't say which ones. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. If you have further probs it looks like OhnoitsJamie has stepped up to the plate. I will be happy to review as well, but I generally issue indef blocks on the basis that I will overturn if the offender says they will try to sort things out (I don't tell them this, of course, when I do) but I also unblock on the basis that I will re-instate it if they don't live up to their promises (and I don't tell them that, either). Since I am not involved in the content dispute I can afford to look at the "what's best for WP" question, but I am aware it can be frustrating for those that are involved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I will maintain a very low profile on this one, as the other admin has promised to watch it. I have other things to do. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- It may be starting again - he just reverted someone on WPSG, but he slipped in a "CW" only change, which was NOT part of the other edit he reverted. I've corrected his "mistake", but this bears watching. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I see Kingturtle has protected the page. Kudos. One mole whacked. Now let's see a show of hands from anyone who's surprised that Rollosmokes continued his The CW "grammar" crusade... Anybody? ... I didn't think so. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- He's still at it with the "CW" changes... - and again... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- The article is now protected. I suggest that some form of discussion regarding what the consensus is for the proper infobox titling is started on the talkpage. In the meantime, I am trying to see if someone might be amenable to asking Rollosmokes to leave the matter alone. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- The other two articles are not protected. Good luck getting somewhat to write something to him that he will listen to. It won't be me. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- The article is now protected. I suggest that some form of discussion regarding what the consensus is for the proper infobox titling is started on the talkpage. In the meantime, I am trying to see if someone might be amenable to asking Rollosmokes to leave the matter alone. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- He's still at it with the "CW" changes... - and again... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I see Kingturtle has protected the page. Kudos. One mole whacked. Now let's see a show of hands from anyone who's surprised that Rollosmokes continued his The CW "grammar" crusade... Anybody? ... I didn't think so. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- It may be starting again - he just reverted someone on WPSG, but he slipped in a "CW" only change, which was NOT part of the other edit he reverted. I've corrected his "mistake", but this bears watching. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I will maintain a very low profile on this one, as the other admin has promised to watch it. I have other things to do. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. If you have further probs it looks like OhnoitsJamie has stepped up to the plate. I will be happy to review as well, but I generally issue indef blocks on the basis that I will overturn if the offender says they will try to sort things out (I don't tell them this, of course, when I do) but I also unblock on the basis that I will re-instate it if they don't live up to their promises (and I don't tell them that, either). Since I am not involved in the content dispute I can afford to look at the "what's best for WP" question, but I am aware it can be frustrating for those that are involved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, I mean him, not you. :) Currently there may be only one or two articles he and I have in common, but not for this issue. And for safety's sake, I won't say which ones. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- (You have archived your page, so I shall respond here) Him or me? Ah, well... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Today he got his second indefinite block in the space of a week. Is that a record? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, I, his Number 1 "vulture", did nothing to him this time. Must have been one of the other "vultures". Of which there appear to be a growing list. But all is not lost. It's an inspiration. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- What I'm surprised at is that it happened so fast. You'd think he would lay low for awhile. Meanwhile, I don't know if he's tried to get on today, but if so, he shouldn't be surprised, especially given his complaints that everyone's watching him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Kudos to the blocking admin OhnoitsJamie. He promised to block if the disruption continued. The user promised to continue the disruption. Both of them kept their promises. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- The blocking admin also wiped the talk page, including the "final shot" at all of us "vultures". Finis. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it was FirsRon and KingTurtle, and maybe some others. They are to be commended for giving this guy every chance. He let them down. It happens sometimes. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- The blocking admin also wiped the talk page, including the "final shot" at all of us "vultures". Finis. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Kudos to the blocking admin OhnoitsJamie. He promised to block if the disruption continued. The user promised to continue the disruption. Both of them kept their promises. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- What I'm surprised at is that it happened so fast. You'd think he would lay low for awhile. Meanwhile, I don't know if he's tried to get on today, but if so, he shouldn't be surprised, especially given his complaints that everyone's watching him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Rollosmokes looks to be back, this time as User:Black Waves. I've moved the issue back to WP:ANI. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- BB, is you naked? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
sockpuppets
AlasdairGreen27 and his compliants are sockpuppets! PIO is a regular editor because his Italian persecutor user:Snowolf is retired! I am not from Milan, I am not PIO and I add links under wiki rules: if you don't like my IPs then can you add links interlanguages in related articles! Open your eyes! 17 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.87.9 (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
review of your block at ani
(moved to archive - Abtract, etc.)
CSCWEM
Since you filed the RfAr, I thought you might be interesting in chiming in here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. –xeno (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Looks I was typing to you as you were typing to it. –xeno (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed - I edit conflicted twice while posting there. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
...is asking for you to review the block. I've made my opinions known there. –xeno (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've responded there to the unblock request. I think I have steered a middle course; I doubt if anyone is going to like it much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
and again
your presence is requested, at the usual venue. –xeno (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Hopefully the peeved factor was not apparent until, possibly, right at the end. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I wanted to apologize to you personally, as Bart's mentor, for having blocked him the first time as, you are correct, I should have brought the continued incivility to you first rather than submitting the block myself; it was an error in judgment and I will be sure not to make the same mistake again, particularly since his talk page will now be thoroughly watched by non-involved admins. I would guess, from the reason that Ryan protected the talk page, that he's a little more than peeved himself. Cheers, CP 22:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Did we ever decide whether or not he was allowed to reorganize talk pages? Because he's done it again. I have not brought this up with Bart yet because I am unclear if it is a violation or not and don't wish to continually disturb everyone by constantly posting minor things on his talk page. Cheers, CP 15:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- From the comments by User:Ryan Postlethwaite - an advantage of being British is that I don't need to check the spelling of that username... - recently on Barts talkpage it seems that he can. I think perhaps taking a chill pill and only reacting when he seriously steps out of line (if he does, per AGF) would be the best for both of us. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Cheers, CP 16:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
it is minor, but it is more then just moving stuff around. why would someone edit a time stamp, i don't get it. Boneyard (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I can explain this as well: "Captain Celery" at first forgot to sign and only did so a minute later on, hence. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- But is it important? No. Is it aggravating? Sometimes, for some people. Why do you insist on doing it? Dunno, it isn't as if you need the talkpage edit credits... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Your guess is as good as mine actually. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- But is it important? No. Is it aggravating? Sometimes, for some people. Why do you insist on doing it? Dunno, it isn't as if you need the talkpage edit credits... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Yet Again
This time far more serious than refactoring talk pages - he has now taken up posting comments from the indefinitely blocked User:Ryoung122, despite a warning and agreement not to. Until he (Young) is unblocked, I believe that this applies to that. Cheers, CP 20:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- As I already pointed out on my own talk page, first of all Robert Young isn't mentioned at all, and secondly, it's proof referring to Laurent Toussaint investigating Pierre Picault. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- It was my understanding that, until he is unblocked, that his indef. block amounts to a ban. The Canada Jack reference that Bart is making can be referenced here, where my assertion seems to be supported. I do, however, agree that more review from different people would be prudent. Cheers, CP 20:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to a dispute between Canadians. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- That seems awfully complicated for a borderline infraction. I'm sure that Bart understands now that it's not to be done. If it continues to happen, I will go for what you say. Until then, we'll let something slide for him (for the 100th time). Cheers, CP 20:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- It won't happen again. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I do think it is a very important option and probably a question that needs answering. A good faith assumption and Bart's message that it won't happen again is enough for me. What I might do, however, is get a discussion going on the policy page for some community input (without mentioning any names of course), as it would be nice to have some definitive consensus, even if it's from a non-admin point of view. I have a few real life tasks to attend to at the moment, but I'll let both you and Bart know when I start the discussion if you'd like some input. To clarify, by the way, I mean input on the question of whether or not the policy I pointed out applies to indef. blocked users as well. Could be an important distinction! Cheers, CP 20:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Looking forward to it. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I do think it is a very important option and probably a question that needs answering. A good faith assumption and Bart's message that it won't happen again is enough for me. What I might do, however, is get a discussion going on the policy page for some community input (without mentioning any names of course), as it would be nice to have some definitive consensus, even if it's from a non-admin point of view. I have a few real life tasks to attend to at the moment, but I'll let both you and Bart know when I start the discussion if you'd like some input. To clarify, by the way, I mean input on the question of whether or not the policy I pointed out applies to indef. blocked users as well. Could be an important distinction! Cheers, CP 20:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- It won't happen again. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- That seems awfully complicated for a borderline infraction. I'm sure that Bart understands now that it's not to be done. If it continues to happen, I will go for what you say. Until then, we'll let something slide for him (for the 100th time). Cheers, CP 20:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to a dispute between Canadians. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: Re Abtract
(moved to archive)
your concerns
the user in question was blocked over WP:DISRUPT, not because they were in a "content dispute". See the reply on my talkpage. dab (𒁳) 16:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Unblock of boy2boy
Hey there. I don't know if you care or not, but I wanted to let you know that while I maintain my reasons for the block, I have no problems with your unblocking, especially in the manner you did so. Just FYI. Tan ǀ 39 21:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well if anybody was going to unblock, I'm glad it was someone I trust. And your response (20:55, 20 July) to my comment made me a bit less concerned. That simple Google search I did showed "Boy2Boy" is more specific a phrase than just "Boy" and it bothers me where, say, "User:Boy4GayPride" wouldn't. "Boy2Boy" seems to be about "cruising", "hooking up", call it what you will. That's still pretty offensive, it seems to me. Is there a more innocuous definition that's used more often? I'm going to think about challenging it at WP:UAA. If I do, I'll leave a note here for you. Whether procedure was followed correctly or not in the block isn't the kind of thing I know anything about, although I've been supportive of the idea of giving people warnings in the past.
- I just sent you an email. These (really horrible pics) illustrate it (sorry, indulge me):
- Since you've unblocked, I hope you'll monitor B2B's future edits, including the sourcing.
- It remains to be seen whether Boy2boy resumes editing. Sometimes a posthumous reduction of sentence to 20 years less time "served" while dead is a hollow judgement... but WP is not life and death. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Mess at United Arab Emirates - how fixed?
Could you spare the time to give me a very brief idea of how you fixed the vandalism at United Arab Emirates a short time ago, and how it had been perpetrated? It appeared to be transcluded and template based, and I'd got the idea it might have been done via the hatnote, but you'd sorted it and restored the hatnote before I was able to track down the offending edit, and I just can't work out what you did. I do a fair bit of anti-vandal work and I'm trying to improve my understanding of the more subtle stuff. A response here is fine. Thanks for any help. Karenjc 13:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply and for the link to the instructions, which helped a lot. I've checked through the edit histories of the templates transcluded to United Arab Emirates and found a couple which were vandalised by this particular user in the past day or so, using two IP addresses (both already blocked). Seems like if you bring up an edit history as your instructions say, find the list of transcluded templates and then visit the ones not marked "protected" or "semiprotected" in turn, checking their history for recent IP edits, you can find the source of the trouble fairly fast. If no joy, try the semiprotected templates and look for suspicious user edits. Revert, arrange page protection, and purge.
- For what it's worth, I think you're right that the trouble had been fixed and your actions purged the page cache. The guilty template seems to have been Template:Wikia or Template:Monarchies. I feel a lot more clued up now. Thanks again for your time. Karenjc 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Carol Spears Ban
Do I have to make a formal proposal or something? Is AN/I the place for proposing and discussing community bans? --Blechnic (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Heck, I just flung it up on AN/I.[163] It's time for everyone to stop wasting time with this woman and get back to writing an encyclopedia and cleaning up her mess. --Blechnic (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Quickies
Yes, I did. Wikipedia user talk pages are not on-line private chat forums for people to kid around and post personal attacks. Everyone is so gung ho on chatting with her, let them find a place to do it, not Wikipedia. Indeed it's time to be done with her, and no one else is bothering to get it over with. She had nothing to say in her articles, that's why she made stuff up. She has nothing to say worth affording her space for on her user talk page, either. --Blechnic (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- For future reference, I am overly fond of absurdist literature. --Blechnic (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
A request for arbitration which you commented on has been opened, and is located here. Any evidence you wish to provide should be emailed directly to any sitting Arbitrator for circulation among the rest of the committee. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 14:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Furry Dance
Hello, can you please expand on your edit comment about the Hal an Tow. What are you thinking? Thanks. FootballPhil (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
RFA Thanks
| Thank you for participating in my RfA, LessHeard vanU! | |
| I am grateful for your confidence: My RfA passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! Of course, I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, so I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, I will be open for recall under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please let me know. Again, Thanks! Okiefromokla questions? 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC) |
Quite a monster. Quite. :) Okiefromokla questions? 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
My value system
In case you've forgotten here is where you made comments against me
I gave it a couple of hours and then went back to reread your comments towards me. They were inappropriate, lacking faith, and insulting. No, they aren't against WP:Civil in my opinion, but they are completely dickardly.
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Beam 00:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- Your inability to understand that other peoples perception of what constitutes an insult, where their cultural and ethnic background is dissimilar to that of yours, is entirely your own affair - and if you are so insensitive to others pointing out that an opinion based entirely on your individual perceptions based on limited personal experience is unworthy of being disseminated on a forum that is frequented by English speaking peoples of a wide variety of cultures and nations, then you may be best advised not to frequent the place at all.
- There will be no apology, since I am prepared to stand behind my comments. An insult is that which ferments discontent and alarm upon the recipient, and is not the arbitrary consideration of a third party who may not be familiar with the term, its history and the perception of it to other people. Your "morality" where nigger and kyke, etc, are considered abusive, but not that of "red headed" (which I didn't know was a term of abuse, until today, for Indonesian people), is inappropriate within a website that has an international editorship, and placing a value system which determines that your impression of insult is somehow more relevant to that of the insulted individual is more than just contrary to the precepts in the countering of racism - it embraces it (although I am certain that it is through ignorance than bad faith.)
- Lastly, do not again question my antipathy toward racism or any type of phobia based on culture, faith (or lack of), lifestyle, gender, sexuality, or whatever. It is not something that I am generally prepared to be civil about which, under the circumstances, I am endeavouring to be in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, you missed the point, didn't understand what I had said in that thread or said here. And your "lastly" is so out of place, it's actually strange. Maybe you want to go read that thread again. Than read my comment here. Than maybe strike out half of what you just said. Just a suggestion. Beam 04:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
You have mail
And, lucky you, it's from me! Risker (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- What, is Lar hiding or something..? LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
|
![[27]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Daredevil46.jpg&oldid=142636334%7Chere){kind=link}
comment on block
Hi, you blocked a user FResearcher recently, and I commented on the block. Would appreciate your reply. Thanks. Lakinekaki (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Will respond there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, how I loathed the idea of doing it, but I've gone and done it (182 refs 'n-all.) The problem is that I'm getting the feeling that user Nandesuka is trying to start a fight. I put this down to the fact that I was instrumental in getting Jeremy Clarkson booted off GA status a while ago (his contributions show that the article is #1 on his list.) I mentioned this, but he fobbed it off by saying he contributes to lots of articles. I think he's trying to goad me, but I'm not biting. Can you have a look and tell me if I'm talking a load of shite or not? I'll have to wait a bit for "that bloody woman" to get a review, so I'm relishing it very much. Ta, very much,
- It's calmed down a bit, funnily enough. Although you never know... :)--andreasegde (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Beatleing about
Hi, thought you might be interested in this new article by a new editor Phillips sound recording services, It was speedied once (under different capitalization), I have done a quick wikify on it, but it would benefit from someone with a bit more knowledge of the Liverpool music scene of the era than me having a look at it. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Just wondering....
you're pretty familiar at this point with my complaints about User:Dwain. For somebody who wants to be "left alone" he's going out of his way to get in the middle of things. He has had in the past a bad habit of stashing pages and information in his user and talk page revisions (which was part of my initial complaint).
I'm going to be brief, but I need to outline a bit to indicate why I think there's a problem: I was doing a cleanup of some of the Cat Freemasonry pages for accuracy, etc., and as I was doublechecking the Anti-Masonry cat, I found John Salza. I looked at his article, and he claims to be a Mason and is on the List page, but the only source is what Salza says on his own webpage. I made a note of this on the List talk (because his claims are odd and records exist even if he quit), and Blueboar decided to prod it as nn. This all well and good, but then I find this diff followed by this diff, where Dwain has cut and pasted the Salza article into his talk and then undid the revision to hide it.
This is exactly the behavior I noted in my recent complaint and in the past. My concern is this: what possible reason could he have to do this if he has no agenda and "wants to be left alone," as he claims? This strikes me as either going out of his way for no apparent reason, or keeping an eye on things that he claims he isn't. He's toeing the line here and I'm pretty sure he knows it. Is there a policy governing what I see as misuse of talk? MSJapan (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Replied on your talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm keeping an eye on it, and having looked further into it, he started the article, but again, despite wanting to be "left alone", he's creating and maintaining articles on Catholic anti-Masons? As per the AfD, I'd also note that I'm getting a little tired of JASpencer's inflammatory statements. His anti-POV is blatant, though he tries to pretend he's neutral and that the rest of us are whitewashing. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Siouxsie and the banshees editorial problem
Hello, I invite you to sort out a recently problem encountered on the Siouxsie and the Banshees. Here it is. On wikipedia, I remark that there's the following consensus : on a page about a band, one doesn't publish a picture when only the singer appears on it with no other band member on his/her sides. I read many bands pages and that's always the case on wikipedia. Here are the instances I took, the band pages about The Cure, The Smiths, Joy Division, killing Joke, etc. So, I guess, it's better that pictures that only show the singer of a band, are not selected on a band page. Yet, recently, people who contributed nothing on the 'siouxsie and the banshes' page, like a user called JD554, threatened me on my user page from edit blocking, plus he posted a weird comment on the history SATB page as if he had one thing against my old contributions. I know that this person was in the past the only one user on The cure page who took defence of user wesleydodds on may 17 th 2008 for a editorial content. So, I wouldn't state that wesley dodds and JD554 are friends or the same user but it seems strange that JD554 arrives on SATB page where as he wrote nothing on that page???. Two other users who also contributed nothing on "Siouxsie and the banshees" page wrote that they wanted this pic. I explained my point about why I thought this pic was not goog for the SATB page : you'll find my answers at the history SATB page. Thanks to let me know how to resolve this. carliertwo (Carliertwo) 05:09, 1 august 2008 (UTC)
- I will look over this this evening (my time). LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello
I might have a potential move-vandalism and general vandalism problem. BeerBelly82, TitleRanch903, and BuffaloSam. The latter of the three left Wikipedia in December of 07 and came back yesterday. The others appear to be new accounts.
BeerBelly82 moved the Johnstown/Altoona Television Market template to Template:Johnstown/Altoona/State College TV, though I can find nothing to show "State College" is part of the official Nielsen "name" for that market. All of the pages that linked to the old template were then changed. TitleRanch903 appears to be following in this changing of old templates.
BuffaloSam has moved two radio market templates to "names" that don't appear to match the official Arbitron "name". This user also changed all of the pages that linked to the old template.
To me, this seems like move-vandalism and general vandalism. I could be wrong, but as Kubigula and Firsfron are out, I bring it to your attention. Thanks...NeutralHomer T:C 23:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, this has been sorted out by another admin. Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 05:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. I don't know what time it was for you when you posted, but it was gone midnight here in Blighty when you posted... Thanks for the reference, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- It was 7:35pm when I posted :) All turned out well. Take Care and Have a Great Sunday...NeutralHomer T:C 15:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. I don't know what time it was for you when you posted, but it was gone midnight here in Blighty when you posted... Thanks for the reference, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
|
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which did not succeed with 30 in support, 28 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks again for the support! |
—CycloneNimrodTalk? 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Re:ANI
Well, your effort is coming back like this.[164] from Carl Daniels (talk · contribs). More information would be here.[165]--Caspian blue (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to bother you again, however, I receive the same complaint from another user, Btzkillerv (talk · contribs) like this.[166]. I'm so curious as to how the bashing comment from indef.blocked user would meet a freedom of speech. Well, the user certainly received Lucy's comment because of this. Given the comments like racist attacks by the user,[167][168][169][170][171], I would not wonder why Btzkiller highly thinks of "freedom of speech". Can you take a look at these? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have commented regarding the removal of personal attacks from peoples talkpages (whether they like it or not) at Btzkillers talkpage. I agree that the last two examples you gave are inappropriate (the rest seem to be from different accounts - but no less appropriate) but I am not looking to be handing out blocks tonight. It is late evening in the UK and I am retiring for the night, so please try to stay out of fights and if you do need admin assistance while I'm offline it will have to be someone else. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. I hope they understand your instruction. --Caspian blue (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have commented regarding the removal of personal attacks from peoples talkpages (whether they like it or not) at Btzkillers talkpage. I agree that the last two examples you gave are inappropriate (the rest seem to be from different accounts - but no less appropriate) but I am not looking to be handing out blocks tonight. It is late evening in the UK and I am retiring for the night, so please try to stay out of fights and if you do need admin assistance while I'm offline it will have to be someone else. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Unblock request for your review
User_talk:Arataman_79#responding_to_the_issue is requesting an unblock - it seems he's willing to communicate with other editors now. Since you blocked him, I defer to your judgement. Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- As I just commented on the editor's talkpage, I think it would be unwise to unblock until there's actually a discussion, i.e. a response to another editor's comment. So far, there's been no response to my 4-hour old comment, although it could, obviously, just be the wrong time wherever Arataman 79 is. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Circumcision
Do I care about what you think? No. Signsolid (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
We're friends
Seeing that we're friends I'm just stopping by to say, "hello." Unless of course you were trying to be insulting when you refered to me as a "mutual friend." As an administrator it doesn't become you to take sides against an editor behind his back. Dwain (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that I have interacted with, or about, you for some weeks... although I have just used that exact phrase regarding another editor. Tell me, are those socks you are wearing with the Jesus sandals? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
WW, AbD and WP:AN
Thanks for trying o help. Nonetheless, Abd's "campaign", as you put it has come to him ignoring my attempts at being helpful and dissolved into his questioning my neutrality. I really can't cope with repeating myself to defend myself at the moment (too much real life stress to have online stress as well) so I'm leaving the project, albeit hopefully temporarily. Assuming this comes up while I'm "away", I hope you can point out why I'm not commenting. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
hello
can you help me out with more info about editing bots? i want to know how they work, thanks
ps: i think we need a special testing and construction area for new templates, tools and infoboxes.
cheers
Btzkillerv (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I actually hadn't looked to see what happened regarding this, figured it would take longer than that. Thank you for letting me know though, hopefully they will learn from the block and not resume their blanking. Although in the case they do resume, I will follow your instructions. I'm still a pretty new editor, and I always try and assume good faith. Sometimes though I just get the feeling that certain editors aren't here to build an encyclopedia. The whole always assume good faith is rather difficult at times. Have a good day, Landon1980 (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Time for unprotection?
Gary Weiss. It's been protected for a few months. It doesn't appear there was any edit war or active dispute. Do you suppose it could be dropped to semi? Cool Hand Luke 01:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a good time to lift protection of any of the articles in what I describe as the 'NSS Syndrome.' This one is the subject of a dispute that actually appears to be unresolved, concerning controversial material targeting Wikipedia specifically.--Janeyryan (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have linked your comments to CHL's talkpage, and perhaps you and him could discuss the best way forward? I would note that CHL is suggesting semi-protection rather than none. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. While I technically have the bit to unprotect, but I'm not an uninterested party. I will be editing the article, so I don't think it's appropriate for me to change it. I don't plan to add the recent Reg story though, and I actually agree with Janeyryan that it should be excluded from this BLP. It's not urgent, so I'm happy with leaving it be for a few more weeks. It would be a different matter if NSS were still protected. A lot of news has affected that subject, but it's appropriately on semi. I'll raise it on the talk page next time before asking you. Cool Hand Luke 01:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've opened the discussion on the article talkpage, so that hopefully more opinions can be gathered. I (a little late) recall that the talkpage is also protected, so that may have to be lifted to allow full participation in the debate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Blocks
I concur. I just wanted to wait to see if they might edit again. I was considering protecting BoogaLouie's page, but it slipped my mind momentarily. bibliomaniac15 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello
"01:22, 17 August 2008 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) (14,097 bytes) (→Copyright Infringement silly billy"
Was that aimed at me? While a minor personal attack, it's not very civil to make belittling comments towards me. I wouldn't do the same to you. I hope you have a great day. Regards, Dean.--Manboobies (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Your comments on my talk page
My talk page is currently semi-protected, so, as my account is too new to edit semi-protected pages, I can't reply there :( Anyway, I've been editing for about a year as an IP, and just recently created an account. While I thank you for your concern about my userpage, I'll be fine :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
blog source on Tucker Max(from the ANI)
i still haven't seen any compelling reason as to why it's appropriate for this blog to be included into the article and edit warred over its inclusion. the original source is allegedly a college newspaper that doesn't appear to have a website or any archives available, but the source currently is just a blog which claims to be a reposting from a school paper. as an encyclopedia, i don't see how this blog passes as a reliable source, warrants much discussion, or edit warring over its inclusion. there is no guarantee that this is a faithful and accurate reposting of the original on the blog. since content wise, it's a pointless source, which adds nothing to the article, and comes from a blog, i really don't see why this should still be included. could you please let me know if you think it should be included still? i am willing to listen to an outsider's opinion. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know
LHvU, I'm losing it. As Bart's mentoring admin, I have to let you know that I am about one more incident away from going back to WP:ANI and building a very long and detailed case for Bart Versieck's banning. I am tired of all the disruption he partakes in, the little things just keep adding and adding up and I feel that all our efforts to turn him into a constructive editor are not getting through and that I may have to lay out the entirety of his disruption to the community to show its entirety. I already asked him twice not to pipe World War II with "Second World War" when it serves no purpose. Maybe it's not that big of a deal, but you can only claim ignorance and then do the same thing again so many times. It's chronic with him. Say he understands, say he won't do something, then do it again and again and again because there are no consequences. Maybe you can explain to him the gravity of the situation, but one more anything, even so much as a tiny change to someone's talk page comments, and this is going to the community and a case will be made to ban. I have lost all patience with this. Cheers, CP 23:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is very strange. Extremely sexy (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sage and sound advice LHvU. That does seem to be the better way. I still hold a bit of hope that this expression of frustration will be my last though... thank you. Cheers, CP 16:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| I am always terrible at choosing the right barnstar, but your sage adminship and infinite patience deserve recognition! Cheers, CP 16:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC) |
- Yes: just keep up the good work. Extremely sexy (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
As you can see from the comments on Bart's talk page, I feel that he has abandoned the notion that he should not be editing other's comments for any reason. As stated above, I have prepared a report on his behavior since the 3 month block was lifted and I am coming here to ask you, as his mentor, where you would like/feel is most appropriate to post it. It does not, as per your suggestion, recommend any particular course of action, if that helps in your decision-making. Cheers, CP 01:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- As I wrote on my own talkpage, I only reverted something. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had missed this in all the other stuff that has been happening on this page. I will look at it drekly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am allowed to revert stuff on talkpages, especially of articles. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hey LHvU - I just had a big Graduate Student Assembly event to run yesterday, along with my usual homework load, and Thursdays are my incredibly busy days, so I've just gotten back to editing now. Thank you for your concern. I am, however, still looking for your advice on where to post my report. Cheers, CP 01:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hey LHvu, here is the report. I will go notify everyone that I promised to in the report immediately. Cheers, CP 17:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not to be found. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hey LHvu, here is the report. I will go notify everyone that I promised to in the report immediately. Cheers, CP 17:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hey LHvU - I just had a big Graduate Student Assembly event to run yesterday, along with my usual homework load, and Thursdays are my incredibly busy days, so I've just gotten back to editing now. Thank you for your concern. I am, however, still looking for your advice on where to post my report. Cheers, CP 01:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am allowed to revert stuff on talkpages, especially of articles. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Kristen Eriksen
Could you please explain why her being of Norwegian ancestry is going to be "the cause of spontaneous combustion among a lot of teenage contributors" more than if she was of any other ancestry? Thanks.--Whatever She Sings, We Bring (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: blogs as a reliable source
i took your advice and attempted to get a 3O over whether http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/02/020402.php is a reliable source, but it did not work out. no one responded because it was involving more than 2 editors. an RfC would be the next move up the bureaucratic procedure list, but that seems like a totally unnecessary waste of time and effort just for someone to step in and remove the link because it's a blog and blogs are not reliable sources. the blog adds nothing substantial to the article and it's a blog to begin with. the reason i posted it to an ANI is because i knew there were 3 editors involved in the article who were going to revert my sane attempts to remove the blog, and i figured if one admin just stepped in and brought some sanity to the situation and said "no blogs in encyclopedias" the situation would be resolved. well, an admin did do that, and the tendentious editors did their job and reverted it. can you please just state your opinion on the article? whether you are for the blog's inclusion or against it, i don't want to go through an RfC for something so petty and unnecessary. there is currently an rfc on an important matter in the article and it's been almost 25 days with no response from a single outside editor. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- oh, and just to give a little background on what i meant when i said there were 3 editors who will revert any sane attempts to fix the article, there was a gawker article (not a reliable source) last week specifically about the censorship on the Tucker Max article http://gawker.com/5037685/strange#viewcomments Theserialcomma (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Great
Amusing edit summaries in both those edits. :D This must be my lucky week for spotting hilarity in the summaries. :) Acalamari 23:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Praise from "battered squid (singular)" is praise indeed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
why you blocking when i am fixing the pages?
i work on adding content to page and others are vandalizing the page and why i get blocked??Recbon (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Recbon has already revandalized the merged Dragon Ball GT article and the Dragon Ball talk page again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Block Question
As the IP admitted to be the blocked sockpuppeteer, User:I'm On Base, why was the IP only blocked for 31 hours? -- iMatthew T.C. 00:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Old friend has returned. A 6 month block would be appropriate here. Utan Vax (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Duncan's, etc
(moved to Abtract, etc. archive)
As you've just bumped into this, it seems...
(moved to Freemasonry archive)
Missing in Action
Your email, that is. I have a feeling there may be a technical problem with the email interface, so I've sent you an email direct so you have my addy. Risker (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
block
i change my ip address which i can do when ever i feel like and now im not blocked any more and now i can edit pages so blocking me wont work. i reset it again and i wont stop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.156.161 (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Corrections
Regarding your entry in this WR thread:
- "Stanley Accrington": yes, a reference to the football club, but I also had the songist Stanley Accrington in mind, as he first came up with the name.
- "Chumbly": a hastily spelt Doctor Who reference.
- "Skinheed": no, not Red Dwarf, but a very early Viz character from back when it was an amateur publication.
- "Fordite": also known as Detroit agate.
Right, I'm done. Cheers, 212.32.97.202 (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Less - just read your bit on WR, you might be wrong about inferring age from the Accrington Stanley reference - I don't remember the team, but in the mid eighties there was a popular advert over here for milk - see you tube. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, but in the 80's there was an assumption that the adult audience would "get" the AS reference - and those who were recently adults at that time are in their forties now. I also recall the Viz character, when it was much more anarcho than humorous, which again dates it to someone my age... Cheers, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Your age? I'm only 38. --212.32.81.27 (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't even know if you're Frostie Jack - you might be George, for all I know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Good. I would hope the CheckUsers aren't being so free with the info they have. But I would also hope that they, or their associates, aren't arranging to have pages vandalised just to catch me out. That would be bad form. 212.32.115.83 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't even know if you're Frostie Jack - you might be George, for all I know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Your age? I'm only 38. --212.32.81.27 (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I may have found another User:Eurovisionman sock. I saw that you were involved before. Here's my report: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Onceloose. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
I just wanted to say thank you very much for your help with User:Mamasaidnakuout and I will keep an eye out for an influx of IP accounts on the articles. Aspects (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well that did not take long. Looks like User:72.211.200.165 is User:Mamasaidnakuout's sock puppet with these two edits, [172] and [173]. Aspects (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thank you so much for blocking Royce Mathew's IP. Though I still wonder how long he's blocked, so I can brace myself should there be another attack ;) what you did was solely kind and I really appreciated. Thank you!
Ah, and here's a barnstar for your work :)
BlackPearl14 would like to give LessHeard vanU the following barnstar for helping her with preventing personal attacks :)
Thanks! BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 21:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Great ;) Ah, I learned a new word! Would it be possible to protect the IP's talk page, as well as all my pages? He's been vandalising mine a lot. If this persists, should I apply for semi-protection on the Pirates of the Caribbean articles? BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- All right, thank you ;) BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 21:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Creating a red link
Normally when people do this I click on the link and write something funny. Unfortunately I can't this time because the title excludes me from participating, as it does you. So I'll have to resssssssiiiist! But I did want to say that I loved your edit summary for this one :-) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Block
Did you seriously only block the user for 15 mintues?! Like that is going to do any good. Ctjf83Talk 22:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- "I meant it to be for 15 minutes and 30 seconds"...is that suppose to be some smartass comment or what? If so, it is not appreciated or funny. 15 minutes and 30 seconds is a ridiculously short block and won't solve anything. I shouldn't have to be harassed by a new user, who is complaining because he isn't getting his way, on his own comments being removed, because he no longer likes them. I told him several times to stop, and he continued. In the future, I won't come back to you if he continues, I will go to an admin who will block for a appropriate amount of time.Ctjf83Talk 23:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I can solve the problem, but you are not going to like it! Remove his comments from your talk page. Problem solved. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ya, block me for what, not pleasing a user, by giving him his way...ya, ok. Ctjf83Talk 23:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- And Theresa, I'm not going to delete comments, because some user doesn't want it shown that he is ridiculous in his comments. Ctjf83Talk 00:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why not? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I can solve the problem, but you are not going to like it! Remove his comments from your talk page. Problem solved. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
72.91.214.42 block
Thanks for blocking this one. The Talk:Sarah Palin page is under seige from spammers at the moment and we need to get things under control. Wellspring (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Cool.LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Palin stuff
Mind taking another look? Seems to be supported to extend your protection a teeny bit. rootology (C)(T) 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi!
Nice to know you. Thank you for rvv to my user page. Happy fighting! Oda Mari (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Semi Protection
I've asked for you to be SP'd for the moment. I hope you don't mind, I just can't follow the debate above. JASpencer (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'll do it myself. With "Fun" comes "responsibility"... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I just put a 15-minute range block on that particular vandal. (I don't like blocking 0/16 ranges for longer than a few minutes.) Wash, rinse, repeat as necessary. Thank you for watching over the Palin article: it's high-profile and important stuff. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers. I'm sprotecting all my various pages in the meantime... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- I just put a 15-minute range block on that particular vandal. (I don't like blocking 0/16 ranges for longer than a few minutes.) Wash, rinse, repeat as necessary. Thank you for watching over the Palin article: it's high-profile and important stuff. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| For your facing flak from dastardly IP editors after semiprotecting the Sarah Palin article. If it gets hot in that helmet, feel free to don one of these. And keep your head down, it's valuable around here! Noroton (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC) |
I'm glad it wasn't chicken. (And don't mind the turkeys or the silly gooses, you've got the eagles on your side, but if the vultures -- stop me before I allude again!) -- Noroton (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Whoops... re: Freemasonry in Belgium
(moved to archive)
Thank you
LHvU, for your note to me, and for your handling of the issue in general. Very thorough, well explained, and respectful to all parties. Much appreciated. Cheers, JNW (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
AIV report
I've re-added my listing - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=235529519 Corvus cornixtalk 05:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually it hasn't been resolved, just deleted from AIV with no action. Corvus cornixtalk 17:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Grand Orient of Belgium
(copy to Freemasonry archive)
Royce Mathew
Look: [174] BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 19:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry! My IP was recorded instead of my account ;) BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 19:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I'm sure you already know the message (it has been posted on "Admin help" on my talk page and on the sockpuppet reports) - I've asked him not to post any more comments on my page, but I doubt he'll listen. Just thought I should tell you. BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 19:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
A diff of interest....
(copy to Freemasonry archive)
Sorry to Bother...
I posted my complaint against the IP for Mr. Mathew on the AIV page, but someone removed it (I accidentally made it three comments instead of one - saved it thrice, as can be seen)... could you help me with retrieving it from the history when appropriate? I can't stand being harassed by this guy anymore...and he gets mad when I tell him what he's doing. Thank you ;) BlackPearl14Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean 01:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Abtract is stalking again
(move to archive)
Odd question
This might seem strange, but does anyone ever say something like "I read your name as LessVan HeardU?" There is probably a reference I'm missing (or I'm dyslexic), but that's how my brain processes your name audibly. Here's hoping that I'm not the only person. Protonk (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Not really a winner...
(move to Abtract, etc. archive)
Appreciating an oblique comment?
Thank you for your participation in WP:ANI#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks . In my view, there was only one constructive outcome; and it flows from something Taemyr wrote: "Something definitely needs to be done about Tenmei's style of discussion if he is to be a constructive participant in this project." Taemyr's suggested mentorship option seems promising. In that context, I construe the following as an initial topic for discussion with a mentor. You were addressing Caspian blue when you wrote:
- If you don't appreciate TK commenting, I suggest you post your next complaint to WP:Admin Noticeboard not involving Theresa Knott (or LessHeard vanU, for that matter). I certainly won't miss you. LessHeard vanU 15:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC) ....
What I don't understand is why I felt so extraordinarily reassured and relieved by your oblique defense of Theresa Knott in circumstances I still can't quite grasp.
Thank you for that terse edit in what Guy described as a "whole festival of Stupid" .... I will try to keep your wry sense of humour in mind as I continue to figure out how to improve the effectiveness of my Wikipedia contributions. --Tenmei (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 47 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC) |
Redacted?
I'm not quite sure why you did this: [175]. I was directed to the AN/I page on IRC. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't catch this when it was posted... It appeared to be a personal attack, given that the account has one edit, to the userpage, made a week ago. The appropriate place to express your concerns would be to the Foundation; they have the expertise and facility to take steps against any hacking, and some evidence of your claim would help them determine the appropriate response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I'm not certain how best to contact the foundation. I never received a reply when I tried before.
- Meanwhile, user is now threatening to sue me (on what grounds I would not know). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Update: my complaint filed at meta was thrown out as a 'personal attack'. Nobody was interested in the evidence or even cared about the hacking, or the fact that the user deleted my complaint. You learn something new every day. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would suggest that you contact the Foundation direct. Wikipedia Foundation#External_links lists the website, which should provide you with an email address or other means of communicating with them. It would be best if you can provide some evidence of your claims when contacting them, as your complaints have been dismissed as "personal attacks" in the absence of same and will likely not be considered with due regard without any. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I found this page with contact information. I will certainly contact the foundation directly now. The situation has escalated further today. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Update: the foundation redirects us back to local, where we started, in a rather aggressive tone of voice. I.e., we have gone full circle without anyone taking responsibility. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- In which case, I suggest dropping the matter. If subsequent events prove you right, then you have a clear conscience - and more fool "the authorities" that were unable to process your concerns. If nothing happens, then you acted in good faith but appropriately did not pursue the concerns. In short, it is time to step away. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Update: the foundation redirects us back to local, where we started, in a rather aggressive tone of voice. I.e., we have gone full circle without anyone taking responsibility. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I found this page with contact information. I will certainly contact the foundation directly now. The situation has escalated further today. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- I would suggest that you contact the Foundation direct. Wikipedia Foundation#External_links lists the website, which should provide you with an email address or other means of communicating with them. It would be best if you can provide some evidence of your claims when contacting them, as your complaints have been dismissed as "personal attacks" in the absence of same and will likely not be considered with due regard without any. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Update: my complaint filed at meta was thrown out as a 'personal attack'. Nobody was interested in the evidence or even cared about the hacking, or the fact that the user deleted my complaint. You learn something new every day. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Thank you also for your gentle reminder. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Andy Bjornovich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Are there a pile of deleted contributions I can't see? I can't say that I was happy over my interaction with him, but I can't see anything in his undeleted contributions that approaches justification for a one-week block.Kww (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the concern; I would point toward the block log - blocked indef for behaviour toward other contributors, and lifted upon undertaking to improve. I consider that they are thus amply warned of the consequences of resuming the problematic attitude. As I said at ANI, lifting the sanction is fine just as long as the editor understands that they need to change their ways in interacting with people. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have anything to say one way or the other about the block, but these two edits [176] [177] from this morning illustrate his unwillingness to listen to other editors. They're additions of completely irrelevant links, after it was explained to him why they shouldn't be included. justinfr (talk/contribs) 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Missed the discussion at WP:AN, and the signature discussion. Sorry for the intrusion.Kww (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
He's block evading using an IP now - see Special:Contributions/212.159.64.14. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- See below, he is editing his own page via ip. Since the majority of the edits are to a page he would be permitted to edit under his name anyway - and none are disruptive - I see no reason for considering warning, blocking the ip or extending the account sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- You're completely right, I was just a little trigger, sorry. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
response from ip =
I think you'll find it's my user talk pages I can edit, not my user page.--212.159.64.14 (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- True, but only one edit was to your userpage - one other was to a subpage. Four(?) were to the talkpage. If you put up a reasonable request (as yourself) on your talkpage I am sure someone will help you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Editing
I have checked, and no, I can't edit my user page. User:Andy Bjornovich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.64.14 (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that was a mistake on my part. Is there an edit you wish me to make on your behalf? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No there isn't, and the reason for that is because I know where I want to put them and it takes a while for me to position them right. However, could you watch my user and usertalk pages so that any edits I make to my user and talk pages via my IP address that get reverted, could you revert back and tell the reverting editor they have not been deleted, they have been moved. Messages to my talk page go to User:Andy Bjornovch/Other, and userboxen I nick via my user that are copied and pasted go to the User page. Okay?--212.159.64.14 (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, although I am just about to go offline for a while. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find it's AZPPB, not AB, and it may change if I remember any more pieces of it. I don't normally allow people into this page, but you and any other administrators involved in my thing with signature/block/conversations have permission. Please use it if you have a conversation about me!--79.73.71.54 (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Re:
Thank you so much ;) It's just - behaviour like this from an adult is really unnerving, considering I'd like some good role models for myself (and I can now safely say you're one of them) ;) Thank you for all you've done, it really helped me a lot! BlackPearl14talkies! 23:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- As for confirmation: I was born on <redacted> therefore I am a minor. I do hope this doesn't mean my school isn't involved, I wouldn't want anything on a record, as I'm aiming for university! ;) Thank you for your help. BlackPearl14talkies! 23:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ah! Thanks for removing that, I didn't realize! And thank you for the advice on role models, I really appreciate it ;) [[User:BlackPearl14|<font color="#CC5555" >BlackPearl14</font>]][[User talk:BlackPearl14|<sup><font color="#667722">talkies!</font></sup>]] (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
UNCYCLOPEDIA
You would think that an article about a site of wit and laffs would have a guard with a sense of humor. I recently made the mistake of thinking, at Uncyclopedia, that I could improve the Lead, just a bit, and add a little whimsy. "GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR""....the Otter at the door said...and then a tag-team of terrible "tuffs" appeared out of nowhere. I was lucky to get away with my Good Faith Editors Badge intact. Nice to meet ya....and, "Bob's yur Uncle.--Buster7 (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- It would seem (although I may be wrong) that you believe that I should know you... If I do, I am sorry but I don't seem to have picked up the clues (and if I have interacted with you on some other page, sorry again but it seems to have slipped my mind). Yours, LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry...I didn't mean to be so overly-friendly. Its a design flaw of mine. My reaching out to you was because of [[178]]
and the furor that followed what I still think was a mild, unprovocative sentance. You came into the picture much later but for basically the same reason for a completely different edit and editor, but, again, an over-the-top response by Otterathome [[179]]
Ive read alot of your entries and I appreciate where you are coming from----Protecting Wikipedia.....so.........basically it was just a handshake and a "Howdy-do"--Buster7 (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I missed the Otter reference - generally because that was a post and forget intervention (though it is amusing, when reviewing the link, that the editor managed to miss my point entirely). Being "overfriendly" is fine; it leads to me being confused, but that is common with so many things it is no reason to suggest toning down something that is of benefit. "Howdy-do, back to you!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
For the record
(move to Abtract, etc. archive)
Request for clarification on your recent action.
Dear Admn. I would like to what alerted you to block me. You blocked me when I made an edit to bring back a section that was removed in bad faith and a RFC was initiated by Ncmvocalist. As I understand also pointed by other editor Erachima such deletion by Ncmvocalist is against Wikipedia policy.
As I understand direct reverts automatically alert Admn. In this case your action is followed after an edit. During the same period I could see on you talk pages there were some intimate transactions going on between Ncmvocalist and you on a different topic. I want to make sure you were not requested to intervene and block me. Please clarify so that I can understand the situation better. Thanks. Naadapriya (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, first I had inadvertently placed above comment on your user page.Naadapriya (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist requested to block at 09:52, 1 September 2008 and bloking took place at 10:30, 1 September 2008 i.e just within 38 minutes. It was acknowledged that the comment I had placed to justify was not read. Given the complexity of situation I guess it would have required more than 38 minutes to make such big decision on blocking. My action before I was blocked was a normal edit to bring back a section that was deleted by Ncmvocalist in bad faith before initiating a RFC. All my other edits were to modify sections based some recent comments in RFC regarding quotes from RS.
I strongly consider my blocking is a result of unfortunate misleading information posted by Ncmvocalist. He has tried it several times in the past without success. In such failed attempts once I guess he himself got blocked. Somehow he succeeded this time. At this stage nothing I can do about my blocking. However, I would like to request Admns to make wikipedia allowed provision to bring back the section that Ncmvocalist has deleted before starting the RFC. It will bring back the article to a status at which Georgewilliamherbert wanted to edit protect for a while. Deleting valid NPOV section without discussion that too just before RFC is ignoring NPOV effort in good faith by many editors to include the section.
Section can be modified based on RFC conclusions. Naadapriya (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Since coming out of the short block, he doesn't appear to have any intention of having the matter resolved, and shows little change in being disruptive agenda-driven account who will not make any constructive contributions. No matter how many times he's been told, or how many users have tried to explain it to him differently, he's continued to disrupt Wikipedia, using it as a battleground to harass those users who do not conform to his POV-pushing [180] [181] [182], whether it's through tendentious arguments [183] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ncmvocalist&diff=prev&oldid=236176207 and on some occasions with threats [184]. He's been warned [185] yet his response shows no change either [186]. Can you please reblock him? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to demur on the block; while the edits are confined to talkspace the editor is exercising their right to WP:DIGYOUROWNHOLE (I cannot use the text of the source I am using because it is copyright? Please!). While it also appears to be poor faith, there are no ad hominem attacks that justify sanction. My view is that the discussion is over, nobody is convinced by this editors arguments, and that any further posts on the subject should be ignored. If Naadapriya edits the article again to his preferred version, then a block would be justified - as it would be if they keep posting (in the absence of continued responses) disruptively. I would comment, however, that I would not consider the possibility of contemplating perhaps raising a query if another sysop took a differing view and acted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. Please note this edit - if he reverts it, I think a block would be justified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to demur on the block; while the edits are confined to talkspace the editor is exercising their right to WP:DIGYOUROWNHOLE (I cannot use the text of the source I am using because it is copyright? Please!). While it also appears to be poor faith, there are no ad hominem attacks that justify sanction. My view is that the discussion is over, nobody is convinced by this editors arguments, and that any further posts on the subject should be ignored. If Naadapriya edits the article again to his preferred version, then a block would be justified - as it would be if they keep posting (in the absence of continued responses) disruptively. I would comment, however, that I would not consider the possibility of contemplating perhaps raising a query if another sysop took a differing view and acted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Charmed36, User:Jamalar and these bloody IP'S they are using.
OK. I have been monitoring both editors in recent weeks. More so Jamalar than Charmed36. They hate each other and wiki-stalk one another's edits, engaging in edit wars. You recently gave Charmed36 a warning for that insult against the IP in the edit summary. Well it turns out the IP is actually Jamalar (I think Charmed36 knew this but I only just put 2 and 2 together). Jamalar has been using that IP to evade a block. See this and Jamalars talk page.
Jamalar and Charmed36 are too very disruptive editors, a lot of their disruption is directed at one another. I don't know where we go from here, but I think they both need to be put on some sort of parole and topic bans. Jamalar should be banned in all honesty, she has been using multiple accounts and IP's for too long. — Realist2 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, Charmed36's incivility is terrible no matter who it's directed at. I'm just letting you know that there was more to it than originally thought. Needless to say, they will both carry on as they have, either on these accounts or other accounts or IP's. — Realist2 20:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think Charmed36 needs help. Well, he could have pretended to be nice for a few days until we stopped monitoring his actions. Oh well. — Realist2 14:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for allowing the lengthy Abtract/Collectoninan/Sesshomaru discussion to take place on your talk page; I'm sure you're getting lots of "You have new messages" notices, but I'm glad to see that we seem to be getting there.
Also, your archive box is cool. :) -- Natalya 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
So where was this pic taken and what were you doing with Sarah P. and when were you in Alaska?
Hmmmmmmmm. [187] -- Noroton (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was about to say that the guy has no earring, but I have not been wearing mine for a week so I think I would comment that I do not own a shirt like that (and you will have to take my word for it...) Anyway, as I recall it, she was saying, "No, I will not pour you a beer - I said I was a Republican!"
My edits
The Katy Perry edit was not disruptive. I have been loyal to Wikipedia for years. Charmed36 (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Charmed36, the fact that you think this isn't disruptive shows how long you have managed to get away with doing what you like. It is very incivil. — Realist2 19:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Help with Signature!
Hi again, LessHeard! This is BlackPearl14, by the way. My signature isn't working, and I've checked the coding, it should work! Any help is greatly appreciated ;) [[User:BlackPearl14|<font color="#CC5555" >BlackPearl14</font>]][[User talk:BlackPearl14|<sup><font color="#667722">talkies!</font></sup>]] (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Right, sorry, but it's a legal threat? Sent to Wikimedia? I've been told to take it to incidents, it's been seen in consensus as a real problem - another admin contacted me just now. As for my signature, could you help out? [[User:BlackPearl14|<font color="#CC5555" >BlackPearl14</font color>]][[User talk:BlackPearl14|<sup><font color="#667722">talkies!</font></sup>]] (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Send to Mike Godwin (links on WP article page); he is the bloke for legal stuff. If there is anything you need to do, he (or Wikipedia Office or like) will let you know - but believe me, this is not the first or last time someone will try to use a younger member of the volunteer staff try to enforce their wishes. Just pass it on to one of the senior (Hi, Mike - I may be even older than you, and it don't bother me!) individuals at WP.
- I am unable to sort your sig - but it may be that there is no space between the Userpage sig and the talkpage sig... if only I knew the coding for both the double square brackets and that for the space. Hope that helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your help, LessHeard, I really appreciate it! [[User:BlackPearl14|<font color="#CC5555" >BlackPearl14</font>]][[User talk:BlackPearl14|<sup><font color="#667722">talkies!</font></sup>]] (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Block needed
Hi there. On User_talk:Rainbow1981, you recently implemented a short block due to image-related vandalism. However, this editor has recently uploaded copyvio images on commons. How can he be stopped? Can there be an indef block on him or at least image uploads? Thanks. Mspraveen (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointers. I'll bear them while dealing with such editors. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for blocking the vandals on Shaun Alexander. That was really getting old. I was also about to go to WP:RPP, then you protected it. :) Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 20:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. Burner0718 Jibba Jabba! 20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.
- Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
- Your contributions are also welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.
For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you help?
Hello LessHeard vanU. On August 24 you blocked IP 68.195.3.185 for 6 months for disruptive genre edits/ignoring talk page consensus etc. That editor has returned with a different IP. They are now 68.195.25.27. They are easy to identify because they use the same repeat edit summary "action metal" for every single edit. I was hoping you could look into this new IP evading your 6 month block. Thank you. Peter Fleet (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for the quick response. If I notice another new IP from that range repeating the same 'action' can I report them straight to you? If I try AiV I will likely get someone unfamiliar with the history who doesn't see the IP edits as disruptive. Peter Fleet (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't know about that previous IP template. Hopefully the person will just go away and I won't have to use it. Peter Fleet (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to follow up on this conversation. Another IP (this time it was 64.131.207.24) appeared earlier this evening and, basically, repeated the edits of the IP you blocked. This time around there wasn't an 'action metal' edit summary. But the IP seemed to hit every single article that the other IP did, with the exact same edits. DNS search puts the two IPs in two different places - but both are in New York State. I hate to assume anything other than good faith. But the "regional coincidence" seems to lean towards block evasion. Another user rv'd every edit the new IP did. I don't see where it's worth anyone's time to do a formal sock case. Your Wikipedia experience is much greater than my own, I just wanted to bring the IP to your attention to hear your thoughts on the matter. Thanks for your time. Peter Fleet (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
ANI Kaihsu header
Changed per your note on my talk page. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
RE: AIV..
So whenever he makes an edit I feel strongly against, I just let it happen? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 10:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi
You might be interested in the discussion here. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Block?
Concerning this, it doesn't look like the IP has received ANY warnings. Can you explain the "blocked user 31 hrs, vandalism past final warning" summary? Am I going blind, or is my computer malfunctioning? IceUnshattered [ t ] 21:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Sarah Palin wheel war case request for evidence
Copying this to all admins who applied or extended protection on the Sarah Palin article.
To date there's been plenty of evidence pointing to discussions and otherwise offering commentary on the admin actions taken, but there's been little covering the circumstances prior to admin actions, namely the edits that the admins concerned based protection on. Newyorkbrad has put a question to the parties on this basis, but it seems to be only non-parties that have noticed that so far, so I'm putting this question to those involved directly.
Rootology has made a start here, and GRBerry has started drafting in his userspace. Ye might like to assist them in their efforts, or add a section of your own. This evidence will be vital in assisting the Committee's understanding of not only what happened and when, but why it happened. --bainer (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- Can I comment at the Sarah Palin Workshop?? Or would it be better to wait for admins to respond first? I would be surprised if the Repulican Party did not make sure that the Sarah Palin article passed the "sniff test" prior to her announced addition to the ticket. That maybe a "good" article to revert to. Other thoughts also...freedom, over-reaction, future effect in WikiWorld, etc,--Buster7 (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up on a block you made
LessHeard vanU, a little while ago you blocked 74.138.170.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for various disruptive acts. Looks like since the block has expired, the anon editor has picked up right where they left off. Mind taking a look? Thanks, alanyst /talk/ 04:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Advice please regarding cut-and-paste from websites
Hi - I would appreciate your advice about recent edits to a wiki-entry I have put some work into, namely [West Bergholt]. I am involved with the Parish Council there and so do have an interest. I have recently noted some large edits to the page that are comprised of unashamed wholesale cut-and-paste of large sections from the village website. It may well be flattering that the prose on the website is deemed by somebody as worth repetition but am I right in thinking that editors ought to précis information and quote external references rather than repeat wholesale? I'm happy for you to reply here or on my page as you see fit or consider most convenient. DaveK@BTC (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I await your instructions
(moved to Abtract, etc. archive)
I don't want to be a part of it
(moved to Abtract etc. archive)
Bart Versieck: Sockpuppet?
Greetings,
It seems that Bart Versieck has created a sockpuppet to evade his block:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Flemishboy
The edits of "Flemishboy" look and sound exactly like Versieck-speak.
Sad. What is so important about making MINOR fixes? As I mentioned before, OCD persons feel COMPELLED to do it; they have to do it. No amount of second or third chances will change that, it appears. Sadly.
Ryoung122 05:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
(moved to Abtract archive)
Lunarian
I'm not sure if you're still keeping an eye on Masonic ritual and symbolism, but I've been having a basically fruitless "discussion" with Lunarian - the talk page is getting full of quotes that apparently have no stated purpose except to waste time. none of the dialogu has anything to do with improving the article, despite the fact that I have directly asked on at least three occasions what Lunarian's point is, or what he's trying to say, and rather than an answer, there's snippy comments and more quotes. It's well into disruptive at this point, and I think AGF is right out the window. MSJapan (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the courtesy notice
Anytime. :) It was a pleasure to work with you on this, as well as Natalya and JHunterJ, and I look forward to future discussions with you. And although you might not hear this enough; your help is always appreciated. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
something peculiar happened
During this edit several categories appeared on my talk page (by mistake I presume). Unfortunately I cannot see where they are to edit them out ... also my talk page has been semiprotected which I have no desire for; can you help pls? Abtract (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've fixed it, LHvU used curly brackets instead of square ones, and this transcluded a userpage onto your talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers, Dunc. I had intended to use the curly brackets, but have a "|" instead of a colon ({{User|Sesshomaru}} which creates links to the talkpage and contrib histories) but the correction is fine. Ta. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK. DuncanHill (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers, Dunc. I had intended to use the curly brackets, but have a "|" instead of a colon ({{User|Sesshomaru}} which creates links to the talkpage and contrib histories) but the correction is fine. Ta. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
My comment goes unanswered
(move to Abtract archive)
User JASpencer
(archived to Freemasonry archive)
Help please re Image Licencing
Hi - sorry to bug you but I have just loaded up my first ever 3 images and have been hit by a bot telling me I need to provide some licence details. I've looked at the relevant pages but am hopelessly confused about what licence to use. The 3 images were provided to me by the son of the original owner Ted Blake (who is now dead) to be used in conjunction with documenting his father's personal history and that of trampolining. Any help gratefully received - please post reply here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveK@BTC (talk • contribs) 11:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Oops, sorry. DaveK@BTC (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I will take a look this evening (my time) as I am unfamiliar with image policy, and on what basis you are uploading the images. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers - my time too :-) DaveK@BTC (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, "RLI|Real Life Intervened" - will look over this evening.... probably! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers, I've found another page that I thought might help answer but it didn't help although had a useful talk page that sems to be well-manned and I might get a response from them at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy so no panic,(I have a few weeks after all before image is deleted), enjoy some RL. DaveK@BTC (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, "RLI|Real Life Intervened" - will look over this evening.... probably! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers - my time too :-) DaveK@BTC (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
When this user's 1 week block ended he made the same edit again he kept making before his block. Mathewignash (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- ...and gone for another month. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help. He made lots of edits in the past that were nonsense, and I had to revert them all, but he won't talk to me when I try to talk. He just changed her user name or uses an anonymous URL. Mathewignash (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Just So You Know
Checkuser confirmed that Flemishboy was Bart Versieck:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flemishboy
Sorry to inform.Ryoung122 00:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I saw, ta. I notice this time the block was not reset. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Abtract, Again
(archiving to Abtract, etc. archive)
(move to Freemasonry archive)
Freemasonry
86.154.221.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) may be of interest to you. DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh... joy! :~/ LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
And more
(move to Freemasonry archive)
Can I say...
as an editor of Solar System that HarryAlffa was making my life miserable, and the fact that no other admin was willing to see his behaviour as blockable was a sign to me that Wikipedia's disruption policy was broken. I had tried to remain civil and not to sink to his level. Ckatz, for months, attempted to stay above the fray and not block him, but eventually he was left with no choice. Judging from the fact his application for reinstatement was denied, it appears that admins are finally beginning to see things from our point of view. Serendipodous 10:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- My concerns were over process, and not the genus of the complaint. Generally, WP uses an escalating scale of blocks which are initially measured in hours - this started as a week. I made my concerns known to Ckatz, whose response satisfied my qualms. Providing your POV is the neutral one, then it is fine (and so is clarifying it). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
An IP you blocked previously
I see you;ve blocked 68.195.25.27 before. I also see this user was reported to you directly by User:Peter Fleet a couple of weeks ago. This IP is the "action metal" genre troll IP. Any chance you can give him another vacation? Thanks. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I note that I previously blocked this account for block evasion. Looking over the edits I see that they are the usual genre editions, but need to know why you feel they need blocking. Are they again evading a block, or are they adding genres without discussion and against consensus? Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Red links at WP:AN
Wikipedia:BUTTHEYDIDITTOO,ANDTHEYWEREN'TBLOCKED-IT'SNOTFAIR has been fixed. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- I tagged it {{db-r3}}: redirect from implausible misnomer. (Hope I'm not spoiling anyone's fun! If this merits a reply, I'll see it here.) — Athaenara ✉ 01:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- (Wikipedia:BUTTHEYDIDITTOO,ANDTHEYWEREN'TBLOCKED-IT'SNOTFAIR would work.) — Athaenara ✉ 01:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- You ani't spolling my fun. As I said to RegentsPark, it's not the first one and I'm surprised that none ever got tagged before. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this disruptive?
I'm trying to figure out if User:Ed Wood's Wig's actions regarding The Clique novel series is disruptive or just annoying. I prodded the individual books in the series except the first one on September 7, feeling they all failed WP:BK. He immediately deprodded them all with the non-neutral (and incorrect) statement of "this is one of the most popular book series for young people in the united states. deletion is wrong." So I sent to AfD. The AfD closed as a keep, with an opening to discuss merging the individual articles into the series page (a suggestion made during the AfD). So I started the merge discussion at Talk:The Clique series#Merges, which he responded to with "We just had an AfD which did not result in a merge. Stop it already." When discussion died down and I noted that consensus seemed to support a merge, he disagreed again and demanded I "let it go". I requested a 30, and a new discussion is still going there, with him so far limiting his responses to claiming that "no actual need for a merge has been demonstrated".
On the 7th, he also attempted to create an article for the unpublished (and as far as the author's website says, unwritten)) next book in the series called P.S. I Loathe You maybe due in 2009. This was immediately CSDed as it was a recreation of an article deleted via [[188]] (and for which several other versions of the name have been salted). Despite this and his attempted DRV on September 9 resulting in an endorsement of the deletion per WP:BK#Not yet published books, he continues trying to link to it. There is pretty clear consensus on Template talk:Clique that a red, salted link does not belong in the template, but he has readded it 8 times so far, with the links removed by 3-4 different editors. The template ended up protected, and as soon as protection was lifted, he went back to adding it again. He is also continuing to try to add the link The Clique series, claiming its valid under WP:CRYSTAL and pointing to the same "sources" rejected in the DRV.
It seems to me that he is determined to continue ignoring consensus and try to push the article existance and edit war over the links. And his continuing to try to push links to the article despite the AfD and DRV is becoming disruptive, with his edit summaries claiming its "inevitable." Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- First, I would wait for the outcome of the 3O - the opinionator may have some suggestions. This editor does appear to be something of a WP:SPA (there are early edits which may not be in relation to the author or books, but I am not familiar with the subject) and is unwilling to accommodate other viewpoints. I suggest that you attempt to gain a consensus among other editors, possibly from a relevant Project, and edit to that. If Ed Wood's Wig continues to revert, then they can be treated as a disruptive editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Alrighty :) So far the discussion is getting, rather interesting, since it became more of a open discussion instead of 3O. Hopefully if consensus is to merge, he will accept that. On a totally different topic, how does one go about requesting IP range blocks? There is a kid who keeps vandalizing numerous Disney pages and talk pages who has been indef blocked under at least 7 user names, and at least 19 IPs from the same ISP. He's causing problems here and at Simple Wikipedia. I did an AN/I, and I think one of the ranges was blocked, but not the rest. Do I just do another AN/I or is there some other formal process for suggesting range blocks? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Re range blocks - what you need is an admin who is familiar with the stuff, since you have to understand the how many ip addresses will be effected and how many of them are contributing usefully to WP (i.e. collateral damage - this is not so difficult as was before, because ip's can request block exemption.) I would suggest you contact User:Alison, who seems familiar with this work. She does get a lot of requests (she is also a CheckUser) so I suggest a polite request and a bit of patience. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Great, thanks again! :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Re range blocks - what you need is an admin who is familiar with the stuff, since you have to understand the how many ip addresses will be effected and how many of them are contributing usefully to WP (i.e. collateral damage - this is not so difficult as was before, because ip's can request block exemption.) I would suggest you contact User:Alison, who seems familiar with this work. She does get a lot of requests (she is also a CheckUser) so I suggest a polite request and a bit of patience. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Alrighty :) So far the discussion is getting, rather interesting, since it became more of a open discussion instead of 3O. Hopefully if consensus is to merge, he will accept that. On a totally different topic, how does one go about requesting IP range blocks? There is a kid who keeps vandalizing numerous Disney pages and talk pages who has been indef blocked under at least 7 user names, and at least 19 IPs from the same ISP. He's causing problems here and at Simple Wikipedia. I did an AN/I, and I think one of the ranges was blocked, but not the rest. Do I just do another AN/I or is there some other formal process for suggesting range blocks? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The Cure
Hello, there's a edit problem on The Cure page with user WesleyDodds (talk · contribs). I already had a issue with him for the same reason last may. I contacted you once at that time : here's the link to the post that I wrote you then. [189] So, after that, the issue was solved, until a few days ago. To make it short about this story, I wrote a part on the cure'page in january. It has been accepted by all the people who read it as no one has erased it, (except from time to time Wesley Dodds). These days, this user has been started to constantly erasing it, judging he's now right and all the people who have read the page and have let this part, are wrong. But in this case, the issue should be clearly not to the benefit of the one and only opponent. Could you write him some words? I tried to explain it by inviting him to read the page WP:Own but he refuses to understand. Thank you in advance. carliertwo (talk) 17:40, 24 september 2008 (UTC)
- I think the magic word is "consensus". Try to find a few other voices and see who agrees with whom - and why. Once the facts rooted in policy are established, then that is the way the article should be edited. The best way to achieve this is via wide discussion on the talkpage. If this doesn't work then you may need to look at the various avenues for dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
It is only needed to advise an editor once that "their" article has been templated. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- If only Twinkle did that automatically. Should I edit his talk page every time I have to re-csd? HalJor (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Request for feedback
I appreciate your input LessHeard (and your experience as a Wikipedian and admin) but my complaint is a still a work-in-progress and was not ready for submission yet. And to be frank, judging by your diff history you don't appear to be qualified enough on the historical/political issues involved to be claiming at this juncture it is my "interpretation of history".
(btw - Typed text has its limitations so I want to make crystal clear I don't mean to come across patronizing saying that. No doubt you know plenty of things I am ignorant about... especially Wikipedia rules... just not these particular issues)
As for the repeated charge of "POV pusher", it comes almost exclusively by Futper and FYROM nationalists. For any exceptions...perhaps at times where I have placing my comments is inappropriate to Wikipedia conventions (like on my user page) and for those times I sincerely apologize (mostly due to my ignorance). However, the vast majority of my beefs and facts are verifiable with a little effort (and if you can show otherwise please feel free to point out which fact is in error so I may remove it as necessary).
I do ignore Futper though (at least as an admin) but only because I have indepth knowledge of his offensive behavior (via his diffs) and the issues at hand. While I'll debate points with other admins (who aren't above being wrong either), I have shown a pattern of listening to them. When an admin suggested I shouldn't have made a large number of edits... I listened. When another admin suggested my user page was inappropriate for my comments I listened. And if you are now telling me my talk page also isn't appropriate for my current task at hand... I also accept your advice.
If you check my record you'll see Futper is the ONLY admin who keeps blocking me and his focus is on editing on many of the exact same articles I do (and issues with him is the reason I keep getting into trouble with other admins... including you). My complaint-in-progress on Futper is based on verifiable facts and diffs (some of which I've already provided). Futper diffs seem to show he constantly attacks Greek positions on a wide number of topics and on a daily basis. The chances of him doing so to one specific group with such great frequency on pure chance alone are bordering on slim to none. If that's not a conflict-of-interest for an admin I don't know what is. (and this is why I feel the political issues at hand need to be intermingled with the complaint to put his behavior into context)
Let's be realistic here Less. Futper is patrolling the fricken user page of a newb looking to find something to pick on to get rid of me. That has show to you something about where his mind is at. I tried to make peace with him after our first run in but apparently he can't stop involving himself with me. He's left me no choice but to respond.
I'd prefer if I had a page (any page) on Wikipedia to work with the formatting because I am going to write a long report to WI:AN for review. Could point me to a page where I would be free to do so within Wikipedia guidelines? (if such a page exists) It really doesn't matter where I do what I need to do here... that being contribute to Macedonia and Greece related articles free of Futper finding new ways to use his admin access to harass me (and I'm not the first to complain about Futper's incivility. Here's another ).
There is a great deal of hate and propaganda being directed at Greeks these days No doubt I am far from the first Wikipedian to claim persecution but in this instance it's not just me saying it. Last year the US Congress introduced a bill (co-sponsored by Obama in the Senate) condemning the FYROM government for hostile activities and propaganda against Greece. (And I can provide you first hand evidence of it so you can see it for yourself.... if you'll listen for long enough)
Any how... I guess you have a choice here Less. Pull admin rank and go on an angry tirade against me (Lecture? Level 5 warning? Block? Ban?) without spending a moment to review some of my very complex concerns... or consider actually listening to the other side of a dispute.
The former anger angle is extremely easy to do. You don't look irresponsible making your prior comments to me. You don't make an enemy of a fellow admin. You don't rock the boat. You essentially send me on my way. But.... it comes at the potential cost that you just contributed your little bit to spreading propaganda on Wikipedia in lew of your humanity. The latter comes at the cost of you just patiently spending a little time authentically wading through my points one-by-one with me.
I'm willing to work with you here. Are you willing to do the same with me? --Crossthets (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see it as a case of us working together, I view it as an attack on another volunteer - which is not permitted - plus the placing of a particular viewpoint as regards the history and sovereignty of Greece as regards territorial claims by Macedonia. If' it is a work in progress, one which will lead to a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, then I suggest you compile it off-Wiki and present in the complete format when you are ready. In short, if you do not use WP space to host your views regarding a certain admin or the contentious context of a territorial/cultural dispute while compiling some WP process then I have no need to interfere; I have no choice in the matter, my actions are regulated by my understanding of the rules, policy and guidelines of WP. As long as you abide by the practices and procedures of WP, then you are free to contribute to the project as you see fit.
- One other point, I really do not care to have my fitness to comment on matters of prejudice and cultural antagonism commented upon. My humanity with regard combating the evils of prejudice and ignorance in matters pertaining to differing histories of cultures, different languages and belief systems, different colour of skin and facial features, is well intact. I reject Greek xenophobia as I do any other nation or peoples or cultures or religions xenophobia - I treat it all with equal contempt. That is why I'm such a fucking wonderful liberal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I will do my edit offsites as you request. And being a "liberal" doesn't mean you are above potential prejudices. I don't appreciate you singling out Greeks for xenophobia. The remark was completely uncalled for(I am married to someone from Scotland incidentally.) Greeks can be discriminated against just like every other group of people. --209.161.238.156 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Mark. Here is what I am faced with Futper. A few days ago I posted some points to the Macedonia_naming_dispute talk page (with sources). Other FYROM nationalists responded to them. I just responded back to them.
- Now.... Futper just | deleted ALL the points The points in question show verifiable evidence of FYROM irredentism and prominent FYROM officials admitting they AREN'T related to ancient Macedonians... which is something that is certainly worthy of discussion on an article on the talk of the Macedonian naming dispute (For inclusion in the main article)
- Here are some one them....
February 26, 1992: FYROM's first President Kiro Gligorov, at an interview by the Foreign Information Service daily report, Eastern Europe, stated:
- "We are Slavs, who came to the region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians."
January 22, 1999: FYROM's Ambassador in Washington D.C., Mrs. Ljubica Acevska, gave a speech on the Balkans, where she stated
- "We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great. We are Slavs and we speak a Slavic language"
February 24, 1999: The FYROM.'s Ambassador to Canada, Gyordan Veselinov, in an interview with the "Ottawa Citizen" said
- "We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are Slavs and our language is closely related to Bulgarian. There is some confusion about our identity."
- "Futper doesn't even want to discuss them though. Doesn't even want to see them. He just deletes points from the talk page he doesn't like and threatened me in the subject "purging section. WP:TALK, this is not a forum. Final warning to Crossthets."
- Futper isn't the victim here. He's the perp. This is what I'm trying to make you understand. I assume your loyalty is to the articles based on your previous response. I also assume you pride yourself above all else on your humanity. Can you give listening to the other side a chance here? Please.... please... I'm begging you for a little help. --Crossthets (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- A couple of points - Firstly, I don't know about the articles, if I have ever edited them it was to remove vandalism or correct spelling. I allow the principles of consensus editing and use of verifiable sources to produce a fair and comprehensive article. Secondly, I did not single out Greek xenophobia; I included as part of all xenophobia ("I reject Greek xenophobia as I do any other nation or peoples or cultures or religions xenophobia - I treat it all with equal contempt.") sentiment, which I reject.
- I have no problem with you bringing up your concerns in the appropriate venues, it is that I do not think it should be permitted to be hosted on your talkpage and certainly not with the language used when regarding Future Perfect at Sunrise. By all means continue to work on your complaint, but within the protocols of WP practice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
There was no need to add "Greek". You could have just said you are opposed to xenophobia. In addition your use of the word "Macedonia" to describe FYROM shows a bias on the matter (most nations in Europe still call it FYROM... as do most international institutions (including the UN)... as does the US Senate (that just officially referred to it as such just yesterday) And every nation that calls it "Macedonia" agrees to abide whatever agreement Greece/FYROM reach. The primary foreign pusher of the name "Macedonia" was that *expletive* Bush (although Obama strongly supports Greece) who recognized it as such because Greece refused to send troops to Iraq and FYROM did (All 40-50 of them....whereas Greeks only fought WW1, WW2, and the communists with America.. including communists in southern Yugoslavia.. now called "Macedonia") Let me quote you US Secretary of State, E.Stettinius who wrote the following on 26.12.1944
U.S. State Department, Foreign Relations Vol. VIII, 868.014 / 26 Dec. 1944)
- The Department has noted increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. This Government (of USA) considers talk of Macedonian “nation”, Macedonian “Fatherland”, or Macedonian “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic, nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece. The approved policy of this Government is to oppose any revival of the Macedonian issue as related to Greece. The Greek section of Macedonia is largely inhabited by Greeks, and the Greek people are almost unanimously opposed to the creation of a Macedonian state. Allegations of serious Greek participation in any such agitation can be assumed to be false. This Government (of USA) would regard as responsible any Government or group of Governments tolerating or encouraging menacing or aggressive acts of “Macedonian forces” against Greece. STETTINIUS U
However. I've been going through your diffs and you seem like an OK chap. I suspect it's because you are being misinformed that you've made the comments you have. I'm dead serious when I say there is a huge amount of hostility and propaganda being directed against Greeks these days (being pushed primarily by FYROM nationalists wanting to be named "Macedonians" at the cost of Greek ethnicity). Futper definitely appears to be one of them (or is someone somehow related to the region)
To understand how I feel here Mark.... picture if you told someone Jewish to "prove" Moses had perfectly identical DNA to them. Or someone Italian to "prove" that Julius Caaesar is related to them. Or to someone Chinese to do so for Confucius. (etc) Our very ethnicity is under assault by a 17 year old country that is the result of ethnic conflicts They have one of the worse human rights records in Europe (other than the rest of Yugoslavia which seems to be even worse).... and suddenly the bad guys are Greeks and we don't exist ethnically? (Nazi Aryans also tried the same shit and said they were the "real" Greeks... as did some of the communists under Tito who started this mess. Everyone is Greek except Greeks themselves?) As I said... Greeks ARE currently the targets of bigotry. Its not as well known as the more classic examples but it is happening. :(
Any how... a question about appropriate language. On my first exchange I had with Futper I had on Wikipedia (as a newb with no prior history) his second set of comments to me were....
- Every sane person with normal adult intelligence can see that your allegations against (removed name). are nonsensical. If you can't see that yourself, it's probably no use me trying to explain it to you. I will simply block you if you continue with this topic, for being either a malicious troll or too clueless for rational discussion
Is Futper implying I am insane, less than adult-intelligence, clueless, irrational, and threatening me with blocking part of Wikipedia civility standards and admin code of conduct? (to a new user with no prior history?) Is it Ok if I call Futper the same?
--Crossthets (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Mark, I'm not sure if you saw my question about Futper's comment above. Does it appear to match Wikipedia civility standards? (I'd like to know before I include it my complaint to ANI.
In addition I just posted some examples of FYROM irredentism on the Macedonia naming dispute (a variation of which was previously deleted by Futper). If you go over the points you'll see what I am saying about FYROM irredentism/propaganda has truth to it. (and no examples are currently in the article... nor any mention of the bills Congress introduced last year condemning FYROM for propaganda... which should say something to you)
The newb soapbox issue you had time to address is trivial compared to the charge of admin bias I'm making. (Please just look read the diff you deleted and pay close attention some of Futper's recent diffs I've provided}. Even incomplete my complaint shows all sorts of information you probably weren't aware about (about Futper and FYROM hostility towards Greeks). If you're against xenophobia as you claim then you must realize Greeks can be the target of bias just like everyone else.
I'm sorry to keep bothering you here Mark but I just don't know where to turn to but other admins (which are much harder for Futper to intimidate). All I ask is for you to carefully review my points before leaving your "level 4" on my talkpage (that you know if left as-is will likely end up with me being later railroaded). Things aren't remotely as black and white as Futper tries to make them out to be and I'd like a little acknowledgment that you see that. (even if it puts you at odds with Futper and your prior comments). --Crossthets (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- To be blunt, I am not involved in the dispute and nor do I care to be. I removed material that violated WP:NPA, and provided my reasons. That was the beginning and the end of my involvement. If you believe you have a case take it through the appropriate venues. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit disappointed you had the energy to look at one side of the issue (between Futper and I) and not the other (ignoring my question about civility twice now). To be blunt myself, it makes it appear you just don't want to risk offending another admin. However, you are using your own free time so I guess it would be very rude of me to insist. On the bright side another admin did spend a little time with me so I am at least partially satisfied. I thank you for the time you've spent thus far. No worries and no hard feelings. Cheers.--Crossthets (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
-_Good_pic.jpg)
|
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
AIV
Thanks. I've posted to ANI.. believe me I know I'm inviting a shitstorm upon my head. Prince of Canada t | c 21:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I understand I made a minor error there.. but deliberately flouting policy is why I made the ANI post. I understand that some latitude is given to some people, but WP:POINT is pretty clear. Prince of Canada t | c 22:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- I do understand where you're coming from, and I know there are some exceptions... but that, to me, wasn't an exception. If he wanted the page to be better, he should simply have made the page better. Doing what he did was thumbing his nose at the community and nothing more. Oh well. Prince of Canada t | c 22:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: protocols of politeness
Editors complain about anything they can when it comes to being reverted. Some have even argued against my removal of uncited content despite the fact that I sometimes reference WP:OR and WP:VER in my edit summaries. I wouldn't worry about it though. Sooner or later they'll realize what I was conveying. If someone vandalizes or adds nonsense to a page, IMHO there isn't anything wrong with saying "rv vandalism" or "rv nonsense" in the edit summary. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Quick Question
(move to Abtract, etc. archive)
NPA problem...
(move to Freemasonry archive)
FYI
Sorry in advance if you just made a simple mis-read of the protection log and I'm being snotty and pedantic. I noticed your protection revison to ANI, and just wanted to make sure you knew about the change in the protection page; you can now specify different expiration times for edit protection and move protection. Hersfold set it so move protection would never expire [190], so you didn't need to do your move protection before his edit protection expired. --barneca (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Autogyro
That's awfully biased. It doesn't matter if they are based IN reality, they are based ON reality. I suggest actually checking out Pilotwings 64 for yourself to see that the design of the autogyros in the game have literally the same design as a real one, so to say it's a completely fictional "fantasy vehicle" on the level of something like the X-Wing from Star Wars for example, is unfair. The section in the article "Autogyro" where I listed a reference to the autogyros in Pilotwings 64 is under "Autogyros in popular culture". I don't ever recall there being some rule that says video games cannot be included in popular culture. They ARE apart of popular culture. Video games fit into the same category as books, films, music, etc. You shouldn't be deleting additions to articles just because you personally believe that video games are childish. Ceejus (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Page protection expiry separated into edit and move protection
Re this summary, it's actually not necessary. With separated expiry, one can have indefinite move protection and the expiry of edit-protection has no effect on it. I tested it recently on my talk page. Cheers.--chaser - t 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- <"big grin">I adore the WP habit of telling us slowcoaches of the latest in technological advances moments after one of us poor old duffers has failed to understand the brave new world we now inhabit... It is particularly amusing to be told it again, presumably on the basis that if we didn't know it first time around a little repetition is an insurance that we understand it in future...</"brig gin"> Thank you - and this is why I stay well clear of XfD, where my incompetence will likely result in some real damage! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oops. I guess I should have noticed that.--chaser - t 21:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, no worries - everyone (who cares, anyway) knows I am atrocious at formatting my responses... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oops. I guess I should have noticed that.--chaser - t 21:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Customer
Come on, I like "customer". :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
Wow...that's gotta be one of the best supports I've gotten. I'm honored...thank you!!!Gladys J Cortez 02:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, it doesn't "count" any more than the others, but... glad you liked it! LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
You got a thank you card!
| A Thank You Card! | |
|---|---|
|
Dear LessHeard vanU, thank you so much for your words of support, kindness, and your trust in me. My request for Adminship has been closed, and the support the community has shown will be with me forever. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am, and all I can tell you is this: I shall try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, please tell me! :) If you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you are welcome to ask, and I shall do my very best.
Please take care. G.A.S 16:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
RFA Thanks
LessHeard vanU, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, SpencerT♦C 02:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.
I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all, , every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.—Kww(talk) 05:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Abtract, As Usual
(move to Abtract archive)
Succotash
Oh.. I'd never thought of that. It's not something we eat up here in the Great White North, though. Prince of Canada t | c 05:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
151.200.32.170
Many thanks for blocking that user. Dealing with him was giving me a migraine. Thanks for keeping me from getting one :) Take Care and Have a Good Weekend...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 11, 2008 @ 17:28
Our friend has returned...
Check a few of his recent contribs... the genre troll has returned. Utan Vax (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- This would technically count, this, and this. I hope these are okay. Thanks again in advance. Utan Vax (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
Hello LessHeard vanU. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 00:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
User:Hubschrauber729
Good evening. Sorry to bother you, but no Wikipedia moderators have made any decision or commented on the issues that I presented in regards to this user and his interpretation of Wikipedia policies. It is getting to be extremely frustrating. -NYC2TLV (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
(moving to Abtract archive)
Maybe the vandalism isn't enough for a block, but as the username is similar to another user, and the first edit is vandalism on that user's page, it looks like the account was created for vandalism or harassment. —Snigbrook 12:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
Hi, thank you much for supporting me in my recent RfA. I appreciate the confidence. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Formatting feedback
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=245063774.
Your formatting seems fine now. :-)
I'll keep an eye on any posts you make in the future to that thread, and sweep my broom if anything needs tidied or fixed.
Anthøny ✉ 20:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, most kind. I would comment that there is one other area which often needs some formatting assistance and the like after I have been posting. It is that area of the encyclopedia that I refer to as... "Wikipedia editing space". I suppose you are a little too busy? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
RfAR about Abtract
(moved to Abtract archive)
plea
Biruitorul seems to want me blocked again. If I get blocked, could you solve that little problem I had last time, please?Xasha (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Two points, LessHeard vanU. First, I'm not concerned what happens to Xasha (contrary to what he says) so long as he respects his topic ban and ceases disruptive editing. Second, I've now seen the case has been referred to AE, probably a more appropriate venue than ANI, and I apologise for any inconvenience caused. Biruitorul Talk 01:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- No apology necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Xymmax RfA
I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Uncommunicative editor
Hi. There is an IP editor, currently editing as User talk:68.79.133.27, but previously under User talk:75.41.6.98, User talk:69.218.254.170 -- you blocked them under that address -- and User talk:67.36.58.41, who continues to make problematic and disruptive edits but refuses to talk about them to anyone. I've been unable to get this editor to respond under any of these IPs (there's absolutely no doubt that it's the same person, look at the idiosyncratic use of "over last" in edit summaries, and the nature of the edits), could you see if you could get them to at least discuss their edits, if not stop doing them? Thanks, Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- LHvU, I see Ed asked for your help too. I left a threat on the IP's latest talk page User talk:68.79.133.27; a threat, because really every attempt to communicate (and Ed has been bending over backwards to try) has met with silence, and I could think of nothing else to try. Another attempt to sweetly beg them to say anything seemed pointless. I suspect (no proof, just a suspicion) we might be dealing with someone with something on the autism spectrum, and communication is just not going to be in the cards; if so, I can think of nothing else except block and revert whenever he reappears. Seems like a pain in the ass, but I don't know of an alternative; this guy edits a lot, and it's too much to expect others to review and fix them half the time.
- If you can think of any better solution, feel free to simply remove my comment from their talk page altogether and take whatever approach you think might work better. It's a shame, because looking at a small random sample of their edits, roughly half the time I would agree with them instead of Ed (sorry Ed). I just feel that a willingness to communicate is non-negotiable here. --barneca (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, its fine. I would only suggest that you place the same message on the next address that pops up, as the address is dynamic and they may not have seen it. You can then link to it on every subsequent ip addy block. Hopefully it will get through. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
(moved to Abtract archive)
Siouxsie & the Banshees page
Excuse me to bother you once again. :) Well, There's an issue on the SATB. I wrote my arguements against 3 users here[discussion page] : this is about this "editorial problem/ the 1986 picture". Could you read all this chapter and also more important the replies I gave to the 3 users who disagreed with me. As you edited to this article, I'd also like to know your point of view on the subject. I also asked on the Siouxsie board what people thought about this pic and some of them found it "scary". To conclude, it seems to me that there are cure fans that hate siouxsie. One can meet them on forums when one mentions sioux's name and I suspect wesley dodds and Jd554 to be like these cure fans as they try to put down the image of the Banshees. I asked you to join on this issue as jd554 asked his friend wesley dodds to join. see the link [[191]] Carliertwo (talk) 19:52, 15 september 2008 (UTC)
Page Vandalism
Don't worry about it, I assume would you do the same thing for me as well. RockManQ (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Heads up
I've mentioned your interaction last year with User:Infoart at WP:AN/I#Saatchi Gallery complaints and legal threat. Ty 23:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Howdy-Do, again
I am basically 'living'at the Sarah Palin article and have had a number of run-ins with editor:Collect. We butt heads...often. So...I got curious who this "clown" was and found this [[192]]. I shared it with a couple of other editors that were having trouble with Collect and they said to go to an admin. I came here first. Advice?--Buster7 (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Er.[193] Ty 05:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can see it was a mistake to show it around town. Is this somebodies idea of a joke? No wonder the Wikipedia community doesnt trust admins. They are alchemists. Not funny, at all! sad really.--Buster7 (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- User:Collect is not an admin. Having seen the kind of collisions he's been in, I assumed it was an attemtp at humor when I read it, also. Dayewalker (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I know that User:Collect is not an admin. If he was I would quit Wikipedia this second. My dissapointment is that Admin:Ty put a goodhumor label on it. This was NOT humor.It displays a mindset that will act against the community. But....Nevermind! what's the point!--Buster7 (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- User:Collect is not an admin. Having seen the kind of collisions he's been in, I assumed it was an attemtp at humor when I read it, also. Dayewalker (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can see it was a mistake to show it around town. Is this somebodies idea of a joke? No wonder the Wikipedia community doesnt trust admins. They are alchemists. Not funny, at all! sad really.--Buster7 (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Prepare to despair.[194] Ty 06:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm so very happy to have been able to help - and am grateful for the 5 "AdminPower" points I earned whilst not actually doing anything... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Less...Maybe after the election you could explain to me what this is all about. It is certainly NOT the response that I thought I would get. Shouldn't admins be concerned and actively respond to evidence of questionable editor intent...especially an editor that is so quick to challenge w/ AGF. How can I AGF after discovering.../User:Collect/z--Buster7 (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Election? ...Oh, the US Presidential one. A couple of things, firstly, I'm a Brit so I don't have the investment in the result and therefore the candidates articles (I am for the encyclopedic value of well sourced/NPOV, but am for every article) and secondly I was very recently involved in the Sarah Palin Protection ArbCom after a very busy few days keeping the article clear of partisan editing when her vice candidacy was announced - I was one of the admins who protected it in the very early days, and I have tended to keep away from that area since. I also was immediately struck that the link was to a humourous page, and not even an original one at that. I regret that you do not appreciate my sense of detachment from the partisanship currently vying for dominance on these pages, but it isn't personal. When the furore has died down in a years time, then will be the opportunity to take stock of what was and what wasn't unethical editing of these articles - but until then the twin requirements of keeping the articles open as far as possible to all editing and the assumption of good faith toward all those who do edit means I am not going to investigate the motives of someone based upon their creation of a non-serious page. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't mind your detachment at all. I know you are much-involved maintaining Wikipedia. I appreciate your position and your response. I didn't expect or request an investigation. I was merely doing what fellow editors had suggested...letting an admin know. Thanks...--Buster7 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Check with Lar. I think that will answer all your possible questions. Also visit WP:GAMING before whinging that I am a "clown" Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Election? ...Oh, the US Presidential one. A couple of things, firstly, I'm a Brit so I don't have the investment in the result and therefore the candidates articles (I am for the encyclopedic value of well sourced/NPOV, but am for every article) and secondly I was very recently involved in the Sarah Palin Protection ArbCom after a very busy few days keeping the article clear of partisan editing when her vice candidacy was announced - I was one of the admins who protected it in the very early days, and I have tended to keep away from that area since. I also was immediately struck that the link was to a humourous page, and not even an original one at that. I regret that you do not appreciate my sense of detachment from the partisanship currently vying for dominance on these pages, but it isn't personal. When the furore has died down in a years time, then will be the opportunity to take stock of what was and what wasn't unethical editing of these articles - but until then the twin requirements of keeping the articles open as far as possible to all editing and the assumption of good faith toward all those who do edit means I am not going to investigate the motives of someone based upon their creation of a non-serious page. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Less...Maybe after the election you could explain to me what this is all about. It is certainly NOT the response that I thought I would get. Shouldn't admins be concerned and actively respond to evidence of questionable editor intent...especially an editor that is so quick to challenge w/ AGF. How can I AGF after discovering.../User:Collect/z--Buster7 (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Saatchi Gallery
Yes, I'll email and copy you in. Do you mind your email address being shown on the email? If so, I'll do a Bcc. Ty 00:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've emailed you about this. Ty 00:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Nothing private on my part. Only privacy concerns might be relating to the gallery. I think the gallery needs to understand the basis of editing is WP:NPOV based on WP:VERIFY using WP:RS, and the resulting material is not a wiki editorial comment nor necessarily the view of the editor(s) of the article, which they seem at the moment to think it is. Ty 03:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Mixing me up ?
I'm a bit baffled by your comments? are you mixing me with the user Scott McDonald? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
RfAr/Abtract-Collectonian
Please see my response to your question on the workshop talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Proposal
(moved to Abtract archive)
Abtract's recent edits
(moved to Abtract archive)
Inquiry
(moved to Abtract archive)
He's been removing MySpace links from other articles as well, not just Siouxsie & the Banshees. He is on a rampage. Check his contribs. I've had a lengthy discussion with him on his talk page, but he continues on, removing links based on his unique interpretation of policy. I wouldn't be surprised if others feel the same way you and I do. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
(moved to Abtract archive)
RfA
Hi LessHeard vanU! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 22:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
RfC/U request
A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- (noting here in case anyone is watching)No thanks; as I remember my interaction was brief, civil, and of no consequence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
|
Hi LessHeard van U, and thanks for supporting my successful request for adminship. It was nice to see all the kind comments I got from my supporters and I hope that I will be more useful to the community now that I have the tools again.--Berig (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC) |
Semi-Protection Jat people
Hi LessHeard vanU, please can you semi-protect the Jat people page for a indefinite period of semi-protection, as many ethnic group pages are semi-protected indefinitely e.g. Jewish people, this stops anon vandals vandalising the page.
This anon vandal has been vandalising the Jat people page for the last 4 months adding uncited information and pov. (I think you blocked him for similar disruption on other page).
So please can you give this ethnic group (Jat people) indefinite semi-protection like the Jewish people and many other ethnic groups have on wikipedia.
Best regards,
James.
—James smith2 (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Olympic Airlines
Many thanks Mark. I am really indebted. Take care. Tasos. (Dr.K. (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC))
Hi there, User:Meven who you recently banned has created a new account at User:Mevenn. I just thought you would like to keep an eye on him. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Indef blocked for block evasion, and edits rolled back; since I live in Cornwall (but born elsewhere) I have some sympathy for the ethnic place name argument, but Cornish articles have the UK name - with any Cornish derivative mentioned in the opening sentence - and so Breton placenames should be the official French placename (that you would find in an atlas) with the Breton variant within the text. If you see another resurrection, please let me know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Ha! Beat me to it - and an obvious sockpuppet to boot. --Rodhullandemu 22:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Ip incivilty/harrasment
Hi, I posted the incident to AN over here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Vandalism_and_incivility_by_and_ip. Your input would be much appreciated --Flewis(talk) 00:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, will do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
River Marteg
Hi. Back in January 2007 you queried the content of the stub article River Marteg. I'v just come across it and my first thought was "so where exactly is this and why is a 2km long stream (presumably a tributary of the Wye) notable?" and tagged it as such. I then checked the original author's contributions and now suspect it might be a hoax. As you are the only other editor to have taken an interest in this curio I thought you might be interested and take another look. Suggest you comment on the article's talk page, but I'll "watch this space" as well. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Godrevy
I notice you commented on the Godrevy lighthouse artice. I have left a comment there and also on the page Talk:Godrevy_Island. Any thoughts on this? (If so please reply to those ta;lk pages)
86.152.159.197 (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have seen your work on Godrevy and left you a comment there. Thank you. 87.113.92.208 (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
question
Hi, I see you reverted a comment on my talk-page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BodegasAmbite). I presume this is related to the 'exchange' with user 58.107.179.146 (talk) on the talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany. is this guy a nut? should I just ignore? (did you revert to spare me his rants?) --BodegasAmbite (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I think your summary of the issue in the blocking message of the above was spot on. The "OMFG Nazi-related material" issue seems to plague every even vaguely Nazi-related topic. Objectivity and neutrality are the Holy Grails of the historian, and the article on anti-smoking initiatives in Nazi Germany (I feel) does a good job. I congratulate you on your conduct. :) SGGH speak! 16:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
More on Godrevy
As previously discussed, I have now added a subtantial amount of new material and made the lighthouse a sub-section. Do you think the article should be re-titled 'Godrevy Head'? If so, please can you do so. The former articles 'Godrevy' and 'Godrevy lighthouse' could then redirect to 'Godrevy Head' perhaps? Please leave any comments on the Godrevy talk page. Thanks. 87.112.74.137 (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Rather than move the content, with edit history so as to comply with GFDL, plus talkpage and its history, to Godrevy Head it would be simpler to create Godrevy Head as a redirect to Godrevy - I think the simpler/shorter name covers the general area, including the village, headland, island/lighthouse, etc. so anyone searching under those options can be directed to the catchall title of Godrevy. In the unlikely event of the article getting so enlarged as to need forking then the redirects can be undone, articles created and linked from the "main" Godrevy article (which would also be the case if the lighthouse section is deemed sufficient for its own article again). Please let me know your thoughts on this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- You will note that I have slightly changed the article to better reflect the above; I would note that the redirects can be made to point to the section headings within the article rather than the article generally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, mark, I'm OK with that way of redirecting - good move. Two small points:
- Firstly, if one types 'Godrevy Head' into the search box, it doesn't redirect to the Godrevy page. Should it?
- Secondly, I would question one point in the intro; I think where you have written 'Carbis Bay', it should read 'St Ives Bay' as Carbis Bay itself is just a (small-ish) beach at the far side of St Ives Bay from Godrevy. 87.115.88.33 (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I shall do the redirect of Godrevy Head drekkly; funny, I live just outside Helston and had always known the entire bay as Carbis Bay, with St. Ives being within it (like Mounts Bay contains Penzance, Newlyn, Marazion, Portleven, etc.). Never mind, I'm a grockle and I will change the wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Typing Godrevy Head should take you straight to that section of the Godrevy article, and I have done the same for Godrevy lighthouse. Please note that redirects can be done by any editor, read up on WP:REDIRECT. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- You will note that I have slightly changed the article to better reflect the above; I would note that the redirects can be made to point to the section headings within the article rather than the article generally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Mark
- During 2004/5, I contributed to Wikipedia as User:Andy_F. But after a longish absence, I forgot my password and - you guessed - I hadn't given an email address. In April this year, I remembered it (see my contributions to Pentire Point and Stepper Point but since then I forgot I'd remembered it, hence my recent anonymous (IP only) contributions to Godrevy (and a few other pieces on Cornwall).
- Anyway, let me introduce myself - hi, I'm Andy. You can now reach me at User_talk:Andy_F. And, yes, I have now made a note of the password :)
- Cool, it is always difficult with an ip - especially one with a contrib history of a couple of days but some clue as to how WP works - to know how to pitch a discussion as regards familiarity with WP practices/processes. As regards Cornwall article editing, I was much more involved 2 years ago and now just keep a few "local" places on my watchlist - but I am always happy to see another name start cropping up on those articles. See you around. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Lessie
Oh you *!%! I'd just made one of my piercingly insightful statements in an RfC and the "you have new messages" banner gave me the fear lol:) Sticky Parkin 13:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
AOL Hometown
Why are you restoring links to AOL Hometown? It has been shut down, and the links don't work anymore (they just go to a notice saying that it has been shut down). --Zundark (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose it was one of the link spamming vandals I was reverting... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Douko
You'll have to forgive me if I didn't have the time to rereport Douko while I was preventing the death hoax from being inserted seven times by two different editors. These things really do have to be taken seriously on the first report. I place my first priority on preventing the hoax from appearing, and try to keep the actual amount of time the hoax is displayed on the order of seconds. I think that is more important than giving vandals a series of warnings.—Kww(talk) 22:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that we seriously need a different book for these death hoaxes. This isn't like scrawling "Miley is a poopy face" into an article ... it's as severe of a BLP violation as can possibly occur. When I'm sitting there calling up the history of the article prepared to roll-back the edit, there's absolutely no feedback to me that my report is being ignored.—Kww(talk) 22:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The hoax is on her YouTube channel at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxYUX_DcCk8, and that's the source of the trouble this time. I've requested protection at WP:RFPP. If you could see to it being quickly handled, I'd appreciate it.—Kww(talk) 22:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
England/United Kingdom
In reply to your message today regarding my deletion or substitution of the name "England" with "United Kingdom" on articles relaing to Cornwall I have set up a new discussion on the Cornwall Wikiproject page. I realise that there were extensive discussions about this topic in the past but I felt that the issue needed re-adressing after reading the portion of your note to me, which read:
the use of both England and United Kingdom in Cornish related articles is a compromise worked out between both sets of nationalist minded editors
Whilst I respect that there were large discussions on this topic and also that I should have posted on the talk page before ammending any article I do find it hard to beleive that any Cornsih nationalist would be able to accept the use of England as a description of Cornwalls' geographical position in the UK. The subject of Cornwalls' constitutional status has been debated for centuries and it is by no means set in stone. there is a wealth of evidence to prove that it has been illegaly annexed to England and, in that respect, we should come to a conclusion based upon a completely neutral and unbiased viewpoint (that includes the viewpoint of the British government).
Thankyou for your message and I'm sorry about dragging this up again. I do strongly beleive that this matter isn't finished with though. Fletch 2002 (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Confused
LessHeard I am a little confused about the comments you added to my talk page. Could you please explain what you mean about you fibbing Jean314 (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Abtract
Hi again. :) Given the relevance to Abtract, and potentially to the Abtract-Collectonian case or the restrictions between Abtract and Sesshomaru, wanted to notify you of something on the WP:RFArb page - please see my note under "Request to amend prior case: Alastair Haines". Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Noted. Without knowing the particulars, this does not appear to be an example of Abtracts previous behaviour issues - unless your investigations prove otherwise it seems a case of Abtract reverting with minimal communication. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't find anything beyond that either after taking a small look. Will refer the Committee here in my note on the RFArb page. Cheers again :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- John found something which could look like a problem (?); he's presented his evidence below his initial request. I've made a separate comment under my note. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Quite a thorough investigation. I concur that there isn't sufficient material to draw a conclusion that Abtract is wikihounding (or whatever the term de jour is), and that the recent issue with him and Collectonian can too easily create an unwarranted impression of same when faced with such examples, but Abtract may perhaps need to recognise that a practice of reviewing the edits of an editor in other articles in the immediate aftermath of a dispute - and reverting "problems" found with minimal discussion - is not going to look good when viewed in the light of the Abtract/Collectonian Arbcom. Suffice to say, if there is a third situation in the near future with some other editor involving this practice I think Abtract is going to find an extremely unsympathetic response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- As I was typing out the edit summary of the above I was reminded of a similar dispute between Abtract and Elonka (I think) which I noted in A's archives when I was gathering information for the Collectonian ArbCom. I suppose this now depends on whether the Haines request feels there needs to be further looking into Abtracts habits... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- John found something which could look like a problem (?); he's presented his evidence below his initial request. I've made a separate comment under my note. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't find anything beyond that either after taking a small look. Will refer the Committee here in my note on the RFArb page. Cheers again :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Spamming User
Hi there - can you advise me please what can be done about a spamming user - new user Simon webmaster appears to work for a company selling play equipment and is intent on spreading his particular form of gospel. DaveK@BTC (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Redacting comments
Next time you edit somebody's words, as you did in this edit at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, please make a note of that. Given your experience here, I assume you well know that and that you simply forgot this, so I added the note for you. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- I must say I was also a bit surprised at your action, and completely bewildered by your response on User talk:Jitse Niesen. Perhaps you would like to reconsider? MSGJ 21:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- The removal of incivility is controversial (WP:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments and WP:RPA) and in my experience often not helpful. If you had removed JRSpriggs's comment in its entirety, that would be all. But you only removed part of the comment, making it appear that he wrote something different from what he actually wrote. That is was I mean with "redacted" and that is why a note is necessary. To me this is absolutely obvious, but I have no idea whether it is codified anywhere. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning" (emphasis in the original), and I think that in this instance you changed the meaning, however subtly. I'm amazed that you apparently do this regularly and thus I added a note in the section at WP:AN asking for others to comment. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, the only comment at WP:AN came down on your side, so it looks like there is more support for your position than I thought. I still think it's very wrong, but I will leave it here. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- With only one response it is hardly conclusive, although I would comment that this is the first time that I had been commented upon on that basis in removing unsuitable text. Since WP policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive and there is no strong guideline either can point at, perhaps it is best to describe this as a open to interpretation situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi there; it was a judgement call, and in view of his impressively abusive edit I was in two minds whether to give a final npa warning or block him. I warned on the basis that he had not been warned and had not previously vandalised. But I am happy to leave him blocked, and will remove my warning. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Voting
In regards to your comments about being overridden by AC and Jimbo, I think that it will not apply to any candidates getting currently more than 50%. I think it's pretty obvious who Jimbo meant who he would veto, although personally, I don't intend to block anyone. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- I noticed your comment on my vote talk page. A lot of the candidates are quite keen to see this potential for "interference" removed, so I dont think there is much to be concerned about this year. It would create a situation where Jimbo would loose his power if he exercised it inappropriately. Obviously he and others need to be much more clear about how it has been used in the past, and when it is likely to be used. I've suggested they should clearly veto a candidate onwiki, before the election, but I doubt their right to veto is really even necessary :- even people who have a clear distaste for arbcom are not voting for the candidates who are keen to overthrow or undermine it. Anyway, I respect your position - this potential for unseen interference is worth drawing peoples attention to. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Your question
You've asked what I was thinking. I've explained more here. No one bats .1000. Certainly I haven't; that's no secret. I take ownership of my mistakes and do my best to set them right. The question for the election is: does this candidate? DurovaCharge! 22:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- The manner in which the concerns were raised was reminiscent of polemic, rather than reasoned consideration (IMO, FWIW). As regards ownership of mistakes; Jehochman was mentored by you, and the ending of that relationship revolved around that one particular matter, so responsibility for perceived failings regarding WP actions cannot entirely rest upon his shoulders (again, IMO). Lastly, is there anywhere that translates baseball analogy into cricket terms, I am often placed on the back foot when faced with such terminology, finding that I am bamboozled by the sticky wicket of a game which I don't understand. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
From Daniel
Danite123 (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Hi there, I’m researching an article about Wikipedia, and its editors. I wonder if you I could talk to you about Wikipedia, and how you use it, for a magazine about not-for-profit organisations. If you could spare some time and wouldn’t mind answering some questions by email or phone, please contact me on Bennett.d@hotmail.co.uk, or leave a message here or on my talk page. Many thanks,
Daniel
- I would be pleased to consider any questions received by email - please use the "email this user" facility on my user/talk pages. I would draw your attention to my Caveat, displayed at the top of my page, in case there are questions you would not feel comfortable in having disclosed should I be concerned enough to disseminate them. Providing we are both happy to continue, I will then answer as best I am able. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Your apology
Thank you for your apology. I am very happy for people to question me agressively regarding my actions (especially since I'm an Arbitrator) and I did not object to your comments, especially since they were justified in this case. I apologise I didn't answer your questions quicker; acting rashly got me into that mess and I wasn't about to comment and make things worse. I've been quite impressed with how this situation has been handled and how people have acted, yourself included. Thank you. --Deskana (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This article has been locked for editing recently and I would like to request that it be unlocked. The author of the book herself edited that article, including a section on the resultant criticism, which was fair and balanced. However, the article has since degenerated to the point were its main focus is upon the criticism and not the book (so much so that the article is verging on irrelevant).
- The editing protection ended on 17 July - it should be available for anyone to edit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
the return of bart versieck
i believe that in a few days bart versieck will be allowed to edit again on wikipedia. i am wondering if you will still act as his "mentor"? it would be nice to see bart acknowledge the special rules that apply to him once he starts editing again.
as far as i can see he hasn't truly accepted any ban since he went along with the rules you proposed (i ignore the occasional sorry i wont do it again (and then doing it again)). every time he said it wasn't fair (as others were allowed to do it, yeah duh, you acknowledged certain special rules bart) and he tried to get unbanned early. hopefully things will be different this time, but as long as he doesn't understand / accept why he gets banned it will happen again soon then later.
i think it might help (or at least clarify things for other admins) if you go over the ground rules again with him (either private or on his talkpage) and let him clearly agree with them. also lets keep it simple, only adding his own opinion on talkpages (so no rearranging, adding time stamps, ..., whatever). Boneyard (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- According to the rulebook (y'know, the one Bart thinks is optional) once a block is over then the editor is supposed to be treated as if the slate is wiped clean... However, the only reason Bart wasn't indef'ed this time is that some other drama erupted before a handful of responses came in, and the discussion was archived. Nevertheless Bart was sanctioned (he isn't keen on that, but there is nothing to say that an archived consensus isn't legitimate). Since then he has slightly socked with ip addresses, but has generally stayed clear of this place. I don't think I will be able to do much if he should go back to his old habits because very few people are prepared to give him a second chance - he will simply be blocked indef the next time someone complains on a noticeboard. One bit of hope is that I am in contact with Bart on Facebook, so I will let him know about this discussion - I will have to stretch an undertaking that we would not discuss things WP, but I think the circumstances warrant it; I will have a word with him drekkly. Perhaps it will be sufficient... I hope this meets with your approval, and thanks for the heads up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Your edit summary
This brought back an old memory and a much-needed laugh. Quite a few years ago as a student I interned at the King of the Hill television series, which was then new. Part the responsibilities were to answer the fan mail. Most of it was routine: running charity fundraisers seeking donations, children's letters. I had a supply of 8" X 10" glossies to send out when requested. A limited number of glossies were signed; those usually went to the children. On the last day of the semester an unusual letter arrived. A father was planning his son's bar mitzvah and his son had chosen our show as the theme for the children's tables. He wrote very politely asking if we might provide something as a surprise for his son.
Normally I'd never disturb a cast member, but one of the writers also did a voice for a supporting character. He had a few free moments and with a big smile he wrote out congratulations to the kid on becoming a man. That day at lunch I had a happy report for the rest of the staff. We've finally hit the big time; we're a bar mitzvah theme.
Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 03:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Distraction is an under-rated tactic, although it can be quite difficult since you have to rely on the other party noticing and being smart enough to comprehend... So well done to the both of you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Late to the party again ! I love it when a great edit summary flashes across my screen. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Careful! The last person who waxed lyrical about my edit summaries is currently running for ArbCom at an approval rating of 87.4% . You have been warned! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Late to the party again ! I love it when a great edit summary flashes across my screen. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Giano
Replied on my talk page but as you seem distressed I thought I'd reassure you here too. I will not stand by and watch anyone sanctioned for doing something they feel is best for Wikipedia. Theresa Knott | token threats 13:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, and a little reminder... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Nice - I'm tempted to change it now but that might be seen as poor taste. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
User comments
Cant see where it says I can remove people's comments on my talk page. AllI can see is this:
- Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.
So I assume that applies to removing other people's comments too, no? And what do you mean by "too late"? Was that a threat? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- It was vague. It didnt say that a user can remove someone's comments in an active discussion. Not all active discussions are warnings. I added this note there. If people can remove anyone's comments from their talk pages, this shold be clear. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Removed the sock's comment to you, restore if you want to. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is practice that it can be done instantly - it indicates that the comment has been read and responded to. Other people are not so permitted, except for obvious vandalism (and for which I thank you). Oh, and the "too late" was in reference to someone else getting there first. Nothing more. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- It does seem a bit strange to remove some comments from the middle of a discussion. It means consensus can never be determined from a user talk page. Removing a whole thread (which may be just one comment) when you don't want to discuss it any more is an other thing. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- User talkpages are not for the creation of a consensus, but to allow communication between the editor and the community. Sometimes certain editors are not welcome on other parties talkpages (there are and have been ArbCom decisions forbidding particular editors from editing another contributors talkpage) and as it is important that lines of communication remain as open as possible while diminishing potential disruption then the "owner" is permitted to remove any comment except a few templates. If the point needs to be made, then it has to be made elsewhere. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- It does seem a bit strange to remove some comments from the middle of a discussion. It means consensus can never be determined from a user talk page. Removing a whole thread (which may be just one comment) when you don't want to discuss it any more is an other thing. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Mantra
I don't want to pester you, but just wanted to briefly follow up on my complaint about TheRingess deleting material from the Mantra article. You said you didn't want to intervene and discussion was still going on at the talk page, but what about when the discussion is finished, which it now is? This editor has a track record of doing this kind of thing and doesn't respond to discussion. (I won't pester you any more.)
You can answer here.
Sardaka (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm an admin, I'm here to be "pestered"! ;~) I have to say that the talkpage on Mantra is fairly sparse, and the only dialogue of any kind is on TheRingess' talkpage - which doesn't seem to be proceeding much further. I suggest giving it some time, and then attempting some sort of dispute resolution if there is no progress in discussion. From a review of the recent article contribution history it appears that the two regular editors are you and TheRingess, so requesting a third opinion might help break the deadlock. FWIW, I agree that the article should relate to the history and cultural/religious implications of the mantra and that it should not be hosting a list of mantra's - there may be an arguement for creating a List of Mantra's article to hold all public domain examples that can be found, which could then be linked to from the main article. Perhaps you might like to suggest this to TheRingess and see if that prompts a discussion? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
DavidWS (contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Happy holidays! DavidWS (contribs) 19:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Damn Dang you!
You took out ALL my best sardonic wit, you <incivility removed>! Now please don't block me for being uncivil... S.D.D.J.Jameson 22:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Fuggit, just as I had located the blick button! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- That
damndadgum blick button hides every time one needs it! S.D.D.J.Jameson 22:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
"my appointments"
Well, technically they are his, not the community's. Is this a good thing? Oooh, I wonder if you can guess what I think? DuncanHill (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- hmm!. DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- If anyone looked at my edit summary of my comment (in the brief time it existed) it could be seen that I even suggested a rewording that would have provided a less autocratic timbre. I also have no desire for a discussion - I don't think there is any basis for a debate, certainly not with that attitude. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Favour
Could you look over my recent contributions, and see if anything (or anybody) sticks out or strikes you as odd? DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing that strikes me as odd - but then I do go around reviewing a lot of peoples contrib histories, so am used to clumps of editing. I recognise User:Enok Walker, because I blocked him and then edit conflicted with you while removing his vandalism. If I am not even close, can you chuck me some clues (tomorrow, for tonight a pile of washing up needs doing before I sleep). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, see my comment on an AfD and take it from there. DuncanHill (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Er, not sure I have anything to add... Disruptive SPA with a far greater knowledge of WP procedure than can feasibly be gathered within the accounts editing timeframe. Looks like it is being dealt with (and the AfD should result in keep since there are more than enough references to establish notability and there is no real parent article it might be merged to). Does this help? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I couldn't put my finger on who it reminded me of last night, I've slept on it and still can't quite get it, but there is something niggling away at the back of my head - it does remind me of something I just can't remember what! DuncanHill (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Er, not sure I have anything to add... Disruptive SPA with a far greater knowledge of WP procedure than can feasibly be gathered within the accounts editing timeframe. Looks like it is being dealt with (and the AfD should result in keep since there are more than enough references to establish notability and there is no real parent article it might be merged to). Does this help? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, see my comment on an AfD and take it from there. DuncanHill (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hope you're OK
This [195] seemed appropriate :) DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, fine. It is something to gird yourself to act boldly, recognising the possible consequences, only to find that the action has been made irrelevant... It could have been worse, since I have always considered Ryan to be an honest broker - even though I often do not agree with him. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Stepping aside on Naked short selling
Well, it seems that I may be assuming some new responsibilities in the near future, and thus must be conscious of certain potential conflicts of interest. Thus, I am going to be removing Naked short selling and the other articles involved in the Mantanmoreland decision from my watchlist. It's my thinking that members of Arbcom should avoid enforcing decisions of the committee, even if those decisions were made prior to the individual's appointment. I recall you being active and interested in the AE on these pages; would you mind terribly if I left them in your capable hands? Perhaps we can find another administrator to back you up. Risker (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
PS: Thank you for your truly unique support - the strength of your faith in me is both humbling and inspiring. R.
- I shall be pleased to keep a weather eye on the article (it seems that some other Arbs apparent were also active there, and may need to disengage), and any others were you would not wish for the appearance of a COI. If any occur to you, just let me know.
- I did vote tactically at the end, but yours was my one legit vote - but only one amongst very many other people. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly, one of my future colleagues was very active in the original case, and has done some extensive editing of the series of articles, and he has already stated he would recuse from any non-editorial activity with them. That is good for the articles, I think, as he has developed a level of expertise in editing them. I have a feeling if any administrative or arbitrative actions need to be taken, there won't be any problem finding sufficient numbers to ensure the right thing is done. I can't think of anything else off the top of my head, but more may surface as I tidy up - I am truly disturbed at how ridiculously overgrown my watchlist has become! And thanks. Risker (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
RFAR
That's why he needs to be banned and we're done with him.
I am so fucking sick and tired of Giano getting away with his shit over and over again. There is absolutely no other editor who can so thoroughly flout the policies and behavioral guidelines that every other editor is expected to follow. *I* was not edit warring; Giano is the only one who was edit-warring, as he reverted at least five other editors, removing another editor's comments in an arbitration discussion, which is beyond the pale. Horologium (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is wrong - but so is allowing another free for all crisis to develop. I have written to Spartaz requesting they either rewrite their opinion so not to allow drama to develop, or to agree to have them removed for the sake of keeping some semblance of peace. Thanks for doing the right thing and talking to me instead of re-re-reverting. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am currently weighing whether I wish to refactor my statement on the arbitration page, as I am now in favor of dropping the banhammer on Giano, something which I was not in favor before (my somewhat snarky statement notwithstanding). If he deletes my statement, I will not accept its removal. This is the direct result of Giano being shielded from any consequences for his actions; he is not supposed to be blocked by anyone other than the Arbcom, and some of the admins who are friendly with him will wheel-war with arbcom to unblock him. The longest he has ever been blocked is <3 days, and he's never had a block expire (every single one of them has been overturned). Horologium (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think that Giano has read your statement, at least he has posted below it - however Spartaz's statement is immediately below Giano's and obviously Giano read it and responded - not the fabbest thing of a long line of non-fabby things he has done over the years, but we have to get away from the knee jerk reactions to such acts. Stoking the fires when confronted by Giano's latest escapade is entirely the wrong thing - I have said I will abide by (and execute if requested) any sanctions derived from calm and considered discussion. Let us try for a little quiet introspection to inform our reactions, just this once. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am currently weighing whether I wish to refactor my statement on the arbitration page, as I am now in favor of dropping the banhammer on Giano, something which I was not in favor before (my somewhat snarky statement notwithstanding). If he deletes my statement, I will not accept its removal. This is the direct result of Giano being shielded from any consequences for his actions; he is not supposed to be blocked by anyone other than the Arbcom, and some of the admins who are friendly with him will wheel-war with arbcom to unblock him. The longest he has ever been blocked is <3 days, and he's never had a block expire (every single one of them has been overturned). Horologium (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Spartaz' frustration, but he went over the line and his comments were rude, abusive, and violating NPA and CIVIL. Giano should have asked for someone else to intervene rather than gone off on them himself, but there was clearly provocation.
This was not one of our better episodes, but there's a longstanding policy of not taunting people subject to sanctions, so I am inclined to suggest that we let the warnings issued stand and leave it lie. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Your are right - I didn't want to warn him as I was hoping he would withdraw the comment, which he did, but on reflection my saying he should bin any warning received was flat wrong. I apologise. I suggest, however, I do not refactor/remove my comment on Spartaz's talkpage, unless there are further responses to it, in a continuing effort to calm things down. Thanks for taking the time to comment, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Unblock Request Notification
Hello, LessHeard vanU! A user you have blocked, EastLopkanAdvocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has requested to be unblocked, and your username is listed on my notification opt-in page. The unblock request is on his user talk page here. If you no longer want to recieve these notifications, remove your name from my list. If you would like to be notified about future unblock requests from this user, remove this template from your page. Thank you, DavidWSBot (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Your heads up
Is much appreciated, as was your comment. IronDuke 16:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Cryptic Message
I'm not sure what your message on my talk page meant, but if you can wiggle your way onto the arbcom at this late date, I'll support that. Tex (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
U-552; belated thanks!
This is a belated thank you for your involvement in this dispute in November; I've not been around much, and I'm just catching up with myself. So thanks! Xyl 54 (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to have helped, although to be honest I do not recall the matter - however I believe I have previously read the article, so it is possible I contributed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
Mark, my very best wishes for the festive season 
stay safe and talk to you in 2009.--VS talk 11:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Merry Christmas, friend. I hope you have a great New Year :-) - Oh, and wish everyone over at WR a Merry Christmas from me, too! ;-) ScarianCall me Pat! 12:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy holidays
Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; our paths have crossed a gazillion times and I've found your comments amusing, helpful and thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which ones which! (Not to mention the great barnstar!!!)
Best, Risker (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
"...or..."? ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
block
why was I blocked. I was responding with a copyright question. 75.91.169.43 (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
Merry Christmas from Promethean
LessHeard vanU,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)
All the Best. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk)
A vos y a los tuyos. Nice to see a pic of you. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Y a usted y el suyo, también. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Unblock Request Notification
Hello, LessHeard vanU! A user you have blocked, Samanthausa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has requested to be unblocked, and your username is listed on my notification opt-in page. The unblock request is on his user talk page here. If you no longer want to recieve these notifications, remove your name from my list. If you would like to be notified about future unblock requests from this user, remove this template from your page. Thank you, DavidWSBot (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Note
I have requested arbitration. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Roobit thread from WP:AIV
I have moved this thread from AIV to ANI, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Roobit_thread_from_WP:AIV. (Seems to be what you had suggested to do anyways, as I agree with you that AIV was not the best forum for it). Cirt (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I was not going to remove it from AIV for obvious COI considerations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Disney Vandal
I have tried to stay away from the whole crap with the DisneyVandal (aka Bambifan101) and his continued returns to vandalize articles. However, I ended up getting a little involved again and found myself completely disgusted to see that User:Colonel Warden is now actively supporting this known vandal's edits and is doing edits for him,[196] including undoing merges that have been in place since September,[197][198] and reverting attempts to restore them,[199] restoring Bambifan101's IP sock edits, etc. He is even using false edit summaries in these edits. I mean, I know he's a big time inclusionist, but surely it is not appropriate to do this sort of thing in support of a well known vandal and sockfarm? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I will drop the good Colonel a line. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have done so, but the results are not encouraging. I now recollect that I have some past history with the dear Colonel - so having warned them regarding observance of WP:BAN I am now withdrawing. If you can find another admin - there was a discussion within the last 36 hours on one noticeboard, I recall - it may be best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Rather sad to see him defending his helping a known vandal :( I've left a note in the current AN/I thread. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have done so, but the results are not encouraging. I now recollect that I have some past history with the dear Colonel - so having warned them regarding observance of WP:BAN I am now withdrawing. If you can find another admin - there was a discussion within the last 36 hours on one noticeboard, I recall - it may be best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Notification of edits to userpages
No, in fact, I can tell you from personal experience that editors are not automatically notified when our userpages are edited. I have to manually check to see whether it's time to update my vandal counter again (I only bother every 5 or so vandalisms, nowadays). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply; Yeah, I remember once checking my userpage history to see some bit I had deleted to find that a vandal and editor had edit warred over it some time ago. I had just assumed that changes would be notified; it's the orange bar, you don't bother watching your own talkpage and therefore forget to do the same for the userpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Betacommand
Hiya.. just wanted to let you know, the conversation I was having with Betacommand was me trying to help him act in a way that wouldn't get him blocked. // roux 17:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Power company
The power company just called and they said to give you the go ahead! Very funny. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Hi, LessHeard vanU!
Thank you for your opinion at this discussion.
Unfortunately, this topic was closed and archived as "Solved" by User:Black Kite, although it is not solved yet. I asked him about it [200], but he did not answered me. Probably, this discussion will be continued.
Happy Holidays and best wishes in the New Year! Krasss (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Request
Hello LessHeard vanU. Can you delete http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mangalore&diff=259327349&oldid=259181557 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazysoul&diff=259347967&oldid=239830717 revisions permanently. It reveals my personal identity on Orkut? Please do not block the user. Thanks, KensplanetTC 10:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thankyou very much. But I find it's not of much use since in a few revisions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mangalore&diff=260286653&oldid=260286388 my identity can still be seen. I don't understand why did the User make my identity public this way even if it was a guess. KensplanetTC 13:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I hope that the information will "disappear" when the cache refreshes, but if it doesn't (give it a day or so) then you may request need to request WP:OVERSIGHT. As for motive, perhaps the other editor was just trying to find reasons - in all innocence - for your viewpoint. There doesn't appear to be any bad motive. It does show, however, that having your details on the net and then editing WP in a manner which can result in someone accessing that information is something you need to consider in the future. 13:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK. I know it was not a bad motive. But what was bad is that the User must have searched my profile there on Orkut, who knows for hours maybe and then posted it here. Was this necessary? This is not acceptable from a User who has been on Wiki for 2+ years. I don't mind if the User posts my previous WikiHistory. KensplanetTC 14:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I hope that the information will "disappear" when the cache refreshes, but if it doesn't (give it a day or so) then you may request need to request WP:OVERSIGHT. As for motive, perhaps the other editor was just trying to find reasons - in all innocence - for your viewpoint. There doesn't appear to be any bad motive. It does show, however, that having your details on the net and then editing WP in a manner which can result in someone accessing that information is something you need to consider in the future. 13:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thankyou very much. But I find it's not of much use since in a few revisions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mangalore&diff=260286653&oldid=260286388 my identity can still be seen. I don't understand why did the User make my identity public this way even if it was a guess. KensplanetTC 13:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Non-admin placement of sock templates?
Hi LessHeard,
Thanks for your help with the Barryispuzzled socks. I wonder, would it be appropriate for me (a non-admin) to place {{sockpuppet}} templates on the user/talk pages of the socks that were blocked back in August? --Xover (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Go for it - just remember to link to the case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, done. See User:Barryispuzzled and the suspected/proven category links on the template. Again, thanks for all your help with this. --Xover (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thx
I bet he'll discuss the issue first now. --KP Botany (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll watch his talk page. He may be willing to discuss the issue. I suspect you're right. --KP Botany (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Courtesy
One of your blocks is under question at User_talk:Tony1/AdminWatch#Problems_with_this_proposal:. MBisanz talk 22:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Responded there; Wait for the howls of "Admin abuse" since I was more than slightly caustic in my response... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight
That IP
Dangit, intended it to be a 24-hour block--my mouse must have gotten stuck. Blueboy96 23:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for reviewing my SSP on Fadulj. Took me forever to sift through all that, and it went unaddressed for a month or so, so I'm happy to have it dealt with :) -Freqsh0 (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
sockpuppetry case
I just wanted to left you a comment regarding the following statement "I am reviewing the case for sockpuppetry as part of my WP responsibilities; you are perhaps fortunate that I decided to comment rather than block you for abuse of policy and write up my conclusions."
I know you are an administrator, but should not you first hear the explanation from the accused? You did look on the evidence at hand, and concluded that I am running some ridiculous IP scheme here. If were guilty of sockpuppetry or whatever Koalorka accused me of, I would definitely say so. According to you, I am some sort of master of proxy with ability to use different IP addresses from countries around the globe to vandalize this amazing learning tool... If so, what makes you think that I will not be able to just switch to another IP tomorrow and keep on editing. Also, I would probably not care to respond to your "conclusions." The truth is I am a woman in 50s and know very little about IT. Definitely, I am not some phantom hacker or computer wizard.
As an administrator on this encyclopedia you have responsibility and you should act in the best interest of Wikipedia. There is NO sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry here. I certainly hope that any decision made will be to the benefit of Wikipedia and not some ridiculous ego trip! Best Maria Mariaflores1955 (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- The evidence, that you have "colleagues" who support your viewpoint per your own admission and that there are more than the one ip that is your non-logged in address whose only contributions are to remove the image you object to, is to me overwhelming. Since these other ip's are possibly your colleagues then perhaps one or more of them are able to use proxies, and we are both of an era (I am in my 50th year) where being female is not recognised as being a reason for having a lack of knowledge was at the forefront of our formative years. All I can do is look at the evidence presented and, as I said, it appears to me to be conclusive. I would point out that, in this matter, I was content to merely comment and not to act to see if another sysop more experienced agrees with me or not. I was content to leave my impressions for another to judge, so I do not think that my ego is any danger of unbalancing the encyclopedia in this matter, and only responded to your comments in turn. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I shall agree to disagree with you conclusions. I have no control over my friend and in the end it was him who contacted me not the other way around. If he has elected not to log in to make revisions that is also his choice. Also to clarify, by no means I believe that women are not brilliant IT operatives, my point is that I am not one... that is all. I appreciate your response and the time you invested in this matter. I still hope that another administrator will see the petty and petulant nature of Koalorka's complaint and that this matter will end up well for me. In closing, allow me to wish you many more productive years at Wikipedia. Maria Mariaflores1955 (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the tone of the above, it may help your case to link to it at the SSP page. I don't mind agreeing to disagree, and I think you may be wise to advise your friend how their help has been interpreted in this matter and request that they do not do so again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I shall agree to disagree with you conclusions. I have no control over my friend and in the end it was him who contacted me not the other way around. If he has elected not to log in to make revisions that is also his choice. Also to clarify, by no means I believe that women are not brilliant IT operatives, my point is that I am not one... that is all. I appreciate your response and the time you invested in this matter. I still hope that another administrator will see the petty and petulant nature of Koalorka's complaint and that this matter will end up well for me. In closing, allow me to wish you many more productive years at Wikipedia. Maria Mariaflores1955 (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
RE:NPOV editing
I understand you, and I'd appreciate the review u'll make to my edits. Thank you. Yamanam (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87 and Dapi89
LessHeard,
I am sorry, the tone of THIS voice reflects your own actions and quality of judgemen (or should I say: Lack of same).
You have managed to fill me with contempt and I am generelly a very tolerant person.
How can you concider adding ONE line to an article vandalism?!!
Don't you think that you should look into the matter? Especially since the deletion is done by the by the anonymous Dapi89.
I am not in the habit of throwing myself on my knees to people who has corruptet their own authority by tyranni, so I am gonna make this short and sweet: Revoke your blocking of the users HenrikHansenDK1631 (me) and my college mate WW2historyBuff WITHOUT FURTER DELAY!!
Different people are using this the IP address 80.160.207.18 besides us, and even if the accusation of vandalism is true (which it is not) you can not block them all.
I have now looked in to the matter, and what has apparently triggered Dapi89 is that others besides us is disagreeing with him (80.198.48.60 not ours 80.160.207.18 (the 80.xxx.xxx.xxx segment is the main Danish ISP provider)), which is obviuosly a problem to him.
I asked him to argue for how a simple observation can qualify to be an "Original Research", and you know the rest. The log reflects the entry "reporting what is now blatant vandalism". I have deleted nothing. I am the victing of his deletions. So block him!!!
If you look in to the history of the page it is clearly reflected that he concider himself the supreme ruler of what is relevant, and what is not for this page.
Keep in mind, that in the end the blocking procedures of Wikipedia is at mercy of the users having the same IP address, and it can be changed within 24 hours. A lot faster than going through the rehabilitation procedures at Wikipedia as I have read them.
In the hope that you take a different course of action so I can return to my normal tone of voice!!
HenrikHansenDK1631
PS: Don't bother having this IP address blocked. It is dynamic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.129.75.129 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Er.... Thank you but no. Read WP:EDIT WAR, WP:MEAT and WP:SOCK before committing your charmingly inept English to prosperity. Having the Stuka's "Jericho Trumpet" referenced in later popular culture is as important as the fact that WWII broadcasts by the BBC to the French Resistance used the first five bars of Beethoven's 5th Symphony would be in that article; true, but of very little importance with regard to the notability of the subject and something perhaps to be inserted into the later parts of the article - and not the opening paragraph. However, arguing semitics is pointless with someone or a group that is prepared to violate WP policy to place such an inane "fact" into the article. The named accounts will not be unblocked by me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
May your year be a pleasant one, or at least may you forget quickly any unpleasantness, and may the sands of time never get in your shoes. And when you get to be this guy's age, may some young thing snuggle up to you and may you then understand that somewhat mysterious look in his eyes, and may that be a good thing, too. And watch out for the sand. -- Noroton (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- He even has my haircut...! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Betacommand
Hey there. I apologize for not leaving a note on your talk page. It was my impression that you were acting as a non-involved party (member of the body of admins) rather than as an involved admin, so I didn't see it as reducing your block, but rather reducing the block, which is why I didn't see it necessary to drop you a line. (Plus I figured you'd see it on Beta's talk page or AN.) Regardless, I was mistaken, and I apologize for that.
Moving beyond all of that, there seems to be a very mistaken impression that I was moving for an unblock of Beta. I wasn't, and I don't particularly know how this impression spread, but it did, and there's no reversing that. What I'm asking of you is to not unblock, but to reblock using a specified duration (45 days seems perfectly reasonable to me). My hope is that this time off will allow cooler heads to prevail and in a month and a half, Beta will be able to re-enter the community. I really see you as the only person able to change this block without a massive shitstorm. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Apology accepted, since you provided it even if there was no burning requirement. I was involved in so much that it was my finger, but I tried to keep out of the subsequent arguments other than opposing the proposed ban. My position has been and remains that an indef block is the appropriate sanction for knowing disregard of policy (or, in this matter, restrictions) until as such time as the disputed action/position is retracted - and then it becomes null and void, and should be lifted. Once Betacommand acknowledges the priority of the restrictions and his past intransience then I am for lifting the block, whereas when a block is for a definite period all Betacommand needs do (if it isn't too long) is wait out the block and try not to get caught next time. There is no acknowledgement of past poor behaviour, and it is possible they will still maintain the line that policy outweighs restrictions if they get brought up again - and I don't think that that is good enough. Notwithstanding my views, I would of course unblock Betacommand should consensus arise that that is the agreed course of action and would be pleased to do so if it was regarded as appropriate, being the blocking admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It appears Beta has acknowledged past wrongdoings and has committed to seeking approval for any and all automated editing in the future here. Had you seen this? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not yet, I am crawling chronologically through my watchlist and am still reviewing stuff from a couple of hours back - ANI (yes, I have seen BC's talkpage) is usually one of the last so I will get there soonest... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- It appears Beta has acknowledged past wrongdoings and has committed to seeking approval for any and all automated editing in the future here. Had you seen this? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
PediaPress
What is it you don't understand? DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- Specifically, the relationship between PediaPress and the Foundation - and what or where is the most appropriate way they can define and notify the relationship (I agree with Jimbo that a userpage that looks like an advert is likely not the best). I also did not realise that the links provided in the original comment - which I only reviewed when this matter was brought up yesterday - should have provided an obvious link between PediaPress and WP (in fact, the original poster must have not either since they brought up the matter at WP:UAA originally). I don't really understand the technical links either (I don't use the js.notebook facility owing to lack of clue) but that doesn't mean I am unable to follow simple guidance notes - and I found a distinct lack of same in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding is PediaPress agreed with the Foundation to develop software that sites which use mediawiki stuff can add. This software can be used to export articles as pdf or get printed books. The software has been added to some other Foundation sites already (such as Wikibooks), and is also used by Commonwealth of Learning, who run WikiEducator. When someone buys a printed book from them, some of the money goes to the Foundation (hopefully leading to Jimbo having to write fewer irritating personal messages to each and every one of the millions of people who read Wikipedia). I do agree that it would be better to have a page in Wikipedia space to explain it, rather than a userpage, but communication with editors is not one of the Foundation's strong points, alas. The press release was in 2007, and this is the first I had heard of it.
- As to using the thing, just copy the code to your monobook.js, empty your cache, and "add article" and "my collection" appear at the top right of any page. When you click "add article", the article is added to your collection. Clicking "your collection" brings up the list of articles you have selected, and you can then change the order of them, give the collection a title, and get them exported as a pdf file (for free) or get it printed and bound (for a price, seems slightly less than other print-on-demand services). The instructions could be clearer, but considering they have been written by a German they aren't too horrendous (I understood them!)
- On sites such as Wikibooks you don't have to bother with the monobook.js, because the software has been enabled already (this is the "collection extension" that PediaPress mentions on his userpage). You get a nice clickable link in your toolbox at the left.
- So to sum up - useful thing, Foundation needs to communicate with us about it better than they have been, and clearer user instructions would be nice. Basically the same as the rest of Wikipedia then :) DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
- ... Well, are you going to write the (NPOV/non COI) article in mainspace? I suppose if there were the appropriate links then that would be the best place for it to sit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
SSP follow up request
You were recently involved in issuing blocks at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oxyman42 (2nd) and advised of being notified for follow ups. I have identified a number of unblocked IPs you might want to look at, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Oxyman42, based mainly on harassment of User:Abd. However, I just came across a difficult one (not interacting with Abd as far as I can see). It is a registered user, Railwayfan2005 (talk · contribs), registered on 17 November 2006. (Oxyman42 was created in April 2006 ). But the signs are:
- edited 60163 Tornado [201] (as did User:Firefly462 [202] on the class article)
- recently queried User:Tony May about the removal of images on List of rolling stock items in the UK National Collection, as did User:Firefly462 [203]
- has the same cat image on their user page as Oxyman24 [204]
- interested in railways and images, specifically London (Railwayfan recently added this commonscat [205], which contains images taken by Oxyman on Commons)
MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Judging by a conversation about a recent revert on my talk page, the above is probably just a conincidence. He certainly doesn't talk or act like Oxyman. MickMacNee (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- I would think that there is a few people with very similar interests, and they are going to inhabit the same pages and ask the same questions - and railway spotters are notorious for "flocking"; it is very likely to be a false positive. As for ip addresses, I don't think blocking them after such a period is going to do anything, they have been abandoned and it is more likely for the sanction to catch an innocent editor than the returning block evader. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
He's still vandalizing
Check the latest edits from User talk:75.73.147.237 as he is vandalizing again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked for a further week. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I guess you should give him a longer block. He's doing it again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Should I make a note in my appointments for 13 weeks from now? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I guess you should give him a longer block. He's doing it again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
CosmicAnthropologist (talk · contribs) blocked!?
I wonder why you have indefinitely blocked this Wikipedian, CosmicAnthropologist, who created and contributed on, among many other useful and technical articles, Moufang polygons? That's the surest way to drive an intelligent guy away from contributing. If he is to be punished for sockpuppetry or vandalism, an indefinite block is too harsh. I've seen worse vandals in the past in Wikipedia getting only 3-month suspension! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.111.86.73 (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- They are a block evading sockpuppet, created to circumvent the sanction of the master account, and as such are blocked indefinitely upon detection. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Page protections
There are some pages in need of protecting on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, the page has been deserted for some time now. Elbutler (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I shall take a look. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
'It almost seems as though there is a link between punk rock and anarchist sentiments.'
I'm sorry, what is that supposed to mean? I am an anarchist myself, and I can assure you that Marvinst does not resemble anything to do with anarchism. Or are you one of those people who think anarchism is some nihilistic philosophy of just doing whatever you want, screw everyone else? Please read our article on anarchism.
I apologize if I seem abrasive; this just really gets to me. Two in one week! Zazaban (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2009
- Did you click the link (I have re-imposed it within the header)? Nevertheless, I would comment that I am sufficiently familiar with Anarchism to know that many adherents reject imposed structures (conformism) and sometimes appear wilfully obtuse in their interactions with others in some situations - which I was referring to in regard to that particular editor. I would say that it pains me say it, being a bleeding heart liberal who acknowledges everyone's right to follow their own lifestyle choices, but I have never known an anarchist with a sense of humour... except perhaps the chaps I once saw at the Free Nelson Mandela concert in Hyde Park standing under a "Federation of Anarchist Movements" banner. Ah, well... Nevermind. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I usually do, but I had somebody claiming that the article on anarchism was factually inaccurate because it did not agree with him, even though everything was sourced and he refused to even read it. Aw well, I've actually made similar jokes in the past myself, I was just caught on a bad day- damn it, I've made an ass of myself, haven't I? :P Zazaban (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I shouldn't worry about it - anyone who commits enough time and content to this space will fall upon their ass eventually; but if you can acknowledge it and carry on with a rueful smile it will stand you in good stead. Look where that philosophy has got Lar!!
- Anyhow, nice to have interacted - hope you are able to add your own interpretations of the wiki method into the melange. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I usually do, but I had somebody claiming that the article on anarchism was factually inaccurate because it did not agree with him, even though everything was sourced and he refused to even read it. Aw well, I've actually made similar jokes in the past myself, I was just caught on a bad day- damn it, I've made an ass of myself, haven't I? :P Zazaban (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
You know...
Re this - I looked at my edit summary after making that edit, and I *knew* someone would call me out on it, considering the topic... Tony Fox (arf!) 22:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion needed
So, y'know that user whose profile makes them look like the fakest faker in Faketown? What do you think is the deal? Keepscases (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am uncertain to which individual or account you are referring to - the most active/recent one that crops up in your contrib history is one that I have not commented upon (that I recall). Can you give me a further hint? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmmm...I don't want to mention any names. I have not directly interacted with this person. Let's just say that this "relatively new" user has a surprising knowledge of Wikipedia combined with a rather curious collection of userboxes. Keepscases (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not enough for me to go on, I'm afraid. Should the situation change, or your concerns are heightened, or someone else queries the situation, come back to me and I will take a look. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmmm...I don't want to mention any names. I have not directly interacted with this person. Let's just say that this "relatively new" user has a surprising knowledge of Wikipedia combined with a rather curious collection of userboxes. Keepscases (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Wit
appreciated[206] KillerChihuahua?!? 10:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
;~D LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
James Lascelles
He is not royal therefor no royal stub is needed 78.145.252.183 (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
TOTSE two
Howdy LHvU, I'mcoming to you because you initially protected the TOTSE article against IPs posting their new forums in the wake of the old one shutting down. Since the semi-pro lapsed, they've come back. I reverted a few of them and asked them to take it to the talk page, but I don't want to edit war over it. My initial thoughts were that since the information is all unsourced and several different places popped up, we should wait until for some kind of official source before letting the new forums essentially advertise on wikipedia. I thought I'd see what you thought, since the IPs are posting the info again and won't discuss it on the talk page. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Is there any indication that you are aware of as to when there might be "official" news about a successor site? If there is, then I would be open to sprotecting up to such an announcement. In the absence of any statement I would rather sprotect for a few days, and then do so again if the ip activity resumes - and if after a while of sprotect, lapse, cleanup, resprotect then hit the indefinite length option. I shall resprotect to cover the weekend pending receipt of your thoughts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- None that I know of, but I'm not familiar with the original site and only know what I've read. Until there's an official notice of a new board (and that new board is shown to be independently notable), I don't think we should be posting random boards on the page. Is the spin-off of a notable board automatically notable?
- Just being rhetorical here, I don't actually know one way or the other. I just know there were several boards that popped up as alternatives as soon as the main site went down, and I don't know if any of them have a notable connection to the original. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Is a spin-off notable? If it is created by the same people for the same purpose, then... perhaps. After sprotecting I went to the article talkpage to request feedback regarding further protection, so you may wish to join in (if there is anything to join) there. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, after the semi-pro expired an IP added the new site [207], which was then stricken (on-wiki) a few hours later [208] and redirected to another site. I deleted both of them and again asked the editors to explain on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- See how it goes; if there is no discussion but only revert warring then it can be indefinitely sprotected until folk start talking - it may be worthwhile putting in a invisible message in the contested area saying that non-discussed sites will be reverted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Addendum: I placed a notice within the lead paragraph. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, after the semi-pro expired an IP added the new site [207], which was then stricken (on-wiki) a few hours later [208] and redirected to another site. I deleted both of them and again asked the editors to explain on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Is a spin-off notable? If it is created by the same people for the same purpose, then... perhaps. After sprotecting I went to the article talkpage to request feedback regarding further protection, so you may wish to join in (if there is anything to join) there. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just being rhetorical here, I don't actually know one way or the other. I just know there were several boards that popped up as alternatives as soon as the main site went down, and I don't know if any of them have a notable connection to the original. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
(OD)I appreciate your attempt to try and get some discussion going on this page, but there's still several IPs adding one of three different successor sites. I've asked on numerous occasions for them to discuss it on the talk page and try and show notability for the new sites, but except for a couple of "It is because Jeff said it was" comments, nobody's talking. The IPs are assuming their new sites deserve mention. Any ideas on how to handle it? I've been trying to get a discussion goin, but I certainly don't want to edit war over whatever this site was. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- In the absence of dialogue I suppose we have to consider how to protect the article in its previous incarnation. It is either long term sprotection, or whacking the ip editors with short blocks. If the ip addys are stable then the latter is the best option, since it allows ip editing from editors who are not pushing their site. If the ip's regularly change, but not the editing intent (or the only ip editing is to promote successor sites), then long term sprotect of the article is best - any new ip can request edits on the article talkpage. As you are more familiar than I with the ip editing makeup I will await your consideration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- It seems 67.167.250.82 (talk · contribs) is the main offender, but not the only one. I'd suggest long-term semi-protection to try and force discussion back to the talk page. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have sprotected the article, noted my reasons on the article talkpage, and dropped a 31 hour edit war block on the above ip with reasons again. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- It seems 67.167.250.82 (talk · contribs) is the main offender, but not the only one. I'd suggest long-term semi-protection to try and force discussion back to the talk page. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
totse
there needs to be a list of "successor" sites on totse.com they are bbs.zoklet.net and totse2.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.36.179 (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Too nice?
I was tempted, but I like to give people another shot if they miss their foot the first time. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
- ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Unblock request, seeking your input.
See User talk:Codechief. He says all the right things, and he can easily be reblocked should he start spamming again. As he is a completely new user, and likely did not understand our polices, would you support an unblock, if I keep an eye on him? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
honeytrap /pot
I've never heard honeytrap are you looking for Honeypot (computing) ? =) –xeno (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is a term I understood was used by the police or blackmailers in the use of a seduction person of the opposite (or not, depending on the blackmail/sting) sex to entrap an individual. I thought it came from bear hunting, and the use of real honey to lure out the animal...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, see the first few entries on Honeypot (disambig). Never heard it used as "honeytrap" though, not saying it's not, but I think honeypot is the more common usage. –xeno (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Might be a UK term, as this search indicates... Guess I can set up a redirect! Thanks for taking the time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- true, true. exists at Honey trap. –xeno (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cheers. I think the one word term needs to have the same redirect, as a barely notable band may be a bit disappointing to some "researchers". ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe a hatnote? Your call. –xeno (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know - this is a band I have not heard of (FWIW) but people didn't seem to recognise my understanding of the term... I think a disambig page for two fairly obscure meanings would be best, but I am also a little perplexed as to how to create a hatnote or a disambig page straight to a redirect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- This should work fine:
{{this|the band|Honeypot}}, yes? –xeno (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)- I tested it, and since it clearly worked I added it - I will just nip over to Honeypot and clarify things there. Thanks, again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is already indicated as an alternative... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- This should work fine:
- I don't know - this is a band I have not heard of (FWIW) but people didn't seem to recognise my understanding of the term... I think a disambig page for two fairly obscure meanings would be best, but I am also a little perplexed as to how to create a hatnote or a disambig page straight to a redirect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe a hatnote? Your call. –xeno (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cheers. I think the one word term needs to have the same redirect, as a barely notable band may be a bit disappointing to some "researchers". ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- true, true. exists at Honey trap. –xeno (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Might be a UK term, as this search indicates... Guess I can set up a redirect! Thanks for taking the time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, see the first few entries on Honeypot (disambig). Never heard it used as "honeytrap" though, not saying it's not, but I think honeypot is the more common usage. –xeno (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
68.192.223.254
FYI: This anon user does not appear to be blocked; s/he is continuing to commit vandalism, although it's on his/her own talk page. Specifically, the user has vandalized the block notification and later, it was removed. I recommend more stringent action. This anon user appears to be little more than a vandalism-only account. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Blocked users can almost always edit their "own" userpages - if they want to make an unblock request, etc. If they vandalise/blank it, then they can be stopped but the best option is to ignore it. In a couple of days there might be a different person editing from that address, and there is no point in punishing them for someone elses stupidity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
75.108.73.219
Thought I would "loop" you in on this one...this anon user that you blocked a month ago is back at his ol' vandalism tricks again. Not sure if you want to handle this or let another admin take care of it, but I thought I would keep you informed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 23:46
- I dropped a note at the admin noticeboard this was being discussed upon. Let me know when they start up again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed your note :) I will keep an eye on his/her contribs in the coming days and if anything starts up, I will let you know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 31, 2009 @ 03:10
May I just say...
... that the "You should start an account at Uncyclopedia" message you recently left here was the greatest thing I've read all day. Majorclanger (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
- Of course you may! It wasn't even sarcastic, since the invention and humour of the now deleted article might have a home there - and it would keep them off the WP pages too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Request
Hey LessHeard, would you mind a quick restore of User:Grsz11/Review? Thanks, Grsz11 02:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Please note it points to a redlink, but I suppose you can sort that out. I would also comment that I shall be retiring for the night soon, so you may need the services of another sysop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. Apparantly I moved the content to User:Grsz11/Review archive, if you wouldn't mind getting that too. Grsz11 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I ec'ed and missed your comment. Thanks for the help. Grsz11 02:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see someone else got it open - you might wish to remove the delete request (unless it has served it's purpose). LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I ec'ed and missed your comment. Thanks for the help. Grsz11 02:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
re User talk:Martin451#You wuz reported to AIV
I apologize for hitting the "report" button on the wrong talk page. It was a well meaning, but still stupid thing to do. I've tried to smooth things over with Martin451 since he obviously was completely blameless. I also apologize for any difficulties this caused for you or other admins. Rest assured that it is not a mistake I will repeat any time soon. Monkey Bounce (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Mistakes is what good editors do from time to time - no problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
User pretends to be a sock
Hi LHvU. I removed the sock template from User:BobbyCro that the user awarded to himself. There is no User:Andycrogonka. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Cheers. Sock or not, themz iz blockzed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fadulj
Your block should still be active, but he's back with a new account methinks. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
User 124.179.79.34 & Folau111
Hi - You recently blocked User:124.179.79.34 and I just wanted to let you know he:she is now editing as Folau111, an account used in the last few weeks for adding the same & similar nationality edits to rugby league articles. Not sure if you can help or if I need to report this elsewhere. Could you advise me, please? •Florrie•waltz a matilda• 05:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- From a quick look at a random sample, I am not sure this is the same editor - Folau11 appears to concentrate on a British superleague side and there is not the ethnicity issues as with the ip. If I have missed the edits that particularly concern you, it may be best if you can supply me with a diff. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- In each instance the edits are exactly the same. Cheers, •Florrie•waltz a matilda• 14:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have blocked for a month - this will force them to use their underlying ip to edit, and if that is the same as previously (and they continue to edit war to their preferred version) then I or another admin will be able to apply a longer sanction. Thanks for the diffs; they are the best evidence when requesting admin help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your help. Cheers, •Florrie•waltz a matilda• 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have blocked for a month - this will force them to use their underlying ip to edit, and if that is the same as previously (and they continue to edit war to their preferred version) then I or another admin will be able to apply a longer sanction. Thanks for the diffs; they are the best evidence when requesting admin help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- In each instance the edits are exactly the same. Cheers, •Florrie•waltz a matilda• 14:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
More pages need protection
Bambifan101's socks have set their eyes on List of The Mighty B! episodes, List of The Mighty B! characters, Talk:The Mighty B!, Hotel for Dogs, Hotel for Dogs (film), Talk:Hotel for Dogs, Talk:Hotel for Dogs (film), Balto (film), Talk:Balto (film), and Robin Hood (1973 film). All of these pages need indef semi-protection. Elbutler (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see Protonk has done the honours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
It Continues
Sometimes during the day (I just woke up) anon user 75.108.73.219 continued his "can figure out what I am doing" style of editing to multiple television station pages. I wanted to let you know first, I will be reverted posthaste. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 1, 2009 @ 23:33
- I reported the anon user to AIV (standard OP) and User:Kralizec! blocked him/her for 3 months. If you want to up that, you are more than welcome....I don't think anyone will dispute it with you. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 2, 2009 @ 00:20
- 3 months is fine, it is the next step up from a 1 month block - not sure why A.train only blocked for 48 hours in the meantime, but it isn't important - and if it continues after 13 weeks then we can look at a 6 month block. I am happy for a steady escalation of sanctions rather than sticking them on a years time out on the 3rd violation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
If you're not too busy...
(moved to Freemasonry archive)
Godigital block evading
Hi LessHeard vanU. User:Godigital, whome you blocked for disruptive editing (reverting Romeo Miller and Master P to his preferred version) is doing it again as his IP (Special:Contributions/66.92.43.144). Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 22:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Stomped. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Toes
Sorry if I inadvertently stepped on your toes with the Kinomakoto (talk · contribs) block! Had I seen your AIV comment, I would have happily waited for a subject matter expert to weigh in regarding the edits in question. Sorry! --Kralizec! (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, if they continue after the block expires then they will get increasing sanctions whether or not the reviewer considers that it is all hoaxes or not - and if they don't continue (and even better, make useful contributions) then the short block has served its purpose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Noticeboards and Palin
I stand behind every action I take, a message you seem to not have taken from my post at WP:AN/I. Which is fairly ironic given that it was the central point of the rant. Editors and admins are judged by the actions they take: their contribution history and their logs.
I stand by my actions with regard to the Sarah Palin article. How do I know it was the Right Thing to do? 'cause smart people told me so. Not (just) on IRC, but at the Arbitration case as well. And while consensus is important on a collaborative project like this, so is doing the right thing and sticking to the principles of the site.
Do I have a problem with transparency? Not at all. In fact I regularly argue for as much of it as possible (especially with regard to page histories and logs). The Arbitration Committee has both private mailing lists and a private wiki. Both of these things reduce transparency, but by your logic, we should be arguing against the use of both. Because of somebody misuses a medium of communication, obviously it's the medium's fault.
As a final note, it has the shortcut WP:DRAMA for a reason. So when you call others "drama mongers," remember that you do so with over 1300 edits to that page, more edits to it by you than any other page in the Wikipedia: namespace. Don't like drama? Don't involve yourself with it. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Intransigence is not generally considered a positive attribute, and it is even less appealing when it comes with a dose of arrogance - and while IRC does have voices speaking there whose opinions I respect and even sometimes share there are those there I emphatically do not, and yet have no recourse against because of a lack of accountability for what was said. I would also strongly argue that there is no more better informed opinion on the IRC channels than might be found on the Wiki space, and anyone who believes that IRC offers more profound consideration than may be found elsewhere has my disdain (and continued contempt when they feel that "per IRC discussion" is sufficient commentary when reversing on-Wiki consensus). Per the Sarah Palin instance, it was wrong and especially when one is convinced one is "Right" it needs to be measured against the consensus it is wrong and put aside; Admins are the instruments of consensus, not its judges.
- I do argue for greater transparency of ArbCom, and consider that the private wiki to be a necessary evil that should be utilised as sparingly as possible and as much detail provided after the event as can be achieved without infringing upon its purpose - and again with the private mailing list I accept that the purpose outweighs the drawbacks - and have been consistent in that regard with my dealings with ArbCom.
- Oh, yes, I am a regular at the AN boards and frequently comment at various ArbComs to which I am not a party - so much so that my article space contributions are a decreasing percentage of my contributions, but I would hope that a review of my interactions indicate that I am a responder rather than an instigator of various topics and while possibly some of my comments have not served to diminish the temperature that it would be in areas where opinion is already divided (of course, others may take a different view of my contributions there - but I can only speak of my intent). If I get involved in drama, previously or presently, it is not likely to be of my own instigation and I certainly won't be withdrawing from it now or in the future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
of Carnatic Music
- Admins are the instruments of consensus, not its judges. Do you practice this really!!!???. In the case of Naadapriya related to Carnatic Music' you hastily acted as a judge to support your close acquaintance user 'Ncm' I am not him but share system with him. Do some soul searching whether you acted on your own or to help out a buddy. Your action has led to a disastrous effect on the article living control to one user. Your deliberate ad-hoc biased support to 'Ncm' has discouraged many senior editors from actively editing the article which is in a bad shape under the control by one language group. See if you can undo the damage. By a Vagabond from a Multi-User System76.212.3.119 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I have not protected the article, even though it has been protected many times by different admins, and I have not blocked Srkris (talk · contribs) who has also been blocked by many differing admins for edit warring involving Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) (who, by remaining unblocked in this matter either edits to consensus or is extremely popular with a huge number of the admin community) or Sarvagnya (talk · contribs) although I did block Naadapriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours - the shortest block on that account, which is now indef blocked for edit warring - back in September. Is this the account you refer to or is it even further back, since it appears from my block comment that this was the result of an ANI discussion; which means I was prompted by consensus, as I averred above. Please let me know to which account you refer, since it appears that several have edit warred against the consensus that Ncmvocalist appears to edit to - although it does not necessarily mean that there is more than one editor utilising new accounts as the old ones are blocked. It seems that the matter weighs more heavily upon your mind than it does mine, since I have had to review the article thoroughly to September last year to find my most recent if not only intervention. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I note the following message was left on my userpage
and it does appear that you refer to the September sanction. As mentioned, I acted in accordance to a conclusion to a discussion (although I do not recall the basis of the consensus) so it would be inaccurate to either claim it to be hasty or done on the behest of one person. It further seems that you are willing, or you condone it of someone with whom you "share a system" only, to violate policy in pursuance of your own POV rather than test it against the arguments of others to attempt to change consensus, so your accusations of my improper use of the tools - which I refute - ring rather hollow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)I do not believe in blocking and recalling blah blah just for the the sake doing so. However I have seen your hasty action on 'Naadapriya' related to 'Carnatic Music'. I am not him but share system with him. Do some soul searching whether you acted on your own or to help out a buddy. Your action has led to a disastrous effect on the article living a monopoly to one user. Your deliberate biased support to 'Ncm' has discouraged many like me to actively edit the article which is in a bad shape under the control by one language group. By a Vagabond from a Multi-User System.76.212.2.204 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I note the following message was left on my userpage
- Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) (who, by remaining unblocked in this matter either edits to consensus or is extremely popular with a huge number of the admin community)
- Almost all Sr. editors have quit in frustration. There is no consensus issue at all in the article
- Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) (who, by remaining unblocked in this matter either edits to consensus or is extremely popular with a huge number of the admin community)
- For sure he/she appears to be popular among some (mostly with same language background) and others buddy Admins like you.
- As I understand Wikipedia is not against the use of shared system. Many of us use public libraries. However no one is using the shared system to solicit support for their views. Never gang-up on other editors like so-called community-ban gangs that has successfully executed 'hyenas attack on lone cub'
- Your hasty (without reading the comments and ignoring the correct action by another Admin) action of unjustified block to support your close acquaintance Ncm POV has made a major negative impact on the article. Almost all 'bold' editors have either quit or forced to quit. Your block is cited often to force an editor out. Now the article is an orphan under the control of a specific language based group. After your wrong action only Ncm has managed to make unilaterally 99.999% edits to the article. It does not speak well about an important wikipedia article. Though it may not be practical to undo all wrong things happened since then, as a responsible Admin one should revisit and see if any correction can be made.76.212.3.119 (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I blocked according to consensus following a discussion at an admin noticeboard, so I reject the claim that it was hasty or ill considered - if you object to the consensus, then change it. The "bold" editors to which you refer are certainly bold in their belief that policies do not need following, and it is a stretch of AGF that only a group of disparate individual who happen to share the same public or educational computer system coincidentally follow the same viewpoints and methodology and no one else of that "language group" - which incidentally I find an extremely offensive comment, that there may be racist overtones in the pov being expressed. I shall not be responding further to this subject, since I do not care for my actions and those of differing editors and admins to be questioned by xenophobic sock/meatpuppets. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Your hasty (without reading the comments and ignoring the correct action by another Admin) action of unjustified block to support your close acquaintance Ncm POV has made a major negative impact on the article. Almost all 'bold' editors have either quit or forced to quit. Your block is cited often to force an editor out. Now the article is an orphan under the control of a specific language based group. After your wrong action only Ncm has managed to make unilaterally 99.999% edits to the article. It does not speak well about an important wikipedia article. Though it may not be practical to undo all wrong things happened since then, as a responsible Admin one should revisit and see if any correction can be made.76.212.3.119 (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response
- 'I blocked according to consensus following a discussion at an admin noticeboard,'!!!??? you spontaneously responded to unfounded compliant by a single editor who had reverted the edits same or more than the editor whom you blocked. There was no consensus at ANI.
- Thanks for your response
- Except for one minor incidence that happened almost 2 years back which was immediately corrected, absolutely there were no violations of wikipedia guide lines from this system.
- From the explicit information posted on the users page and type of edits one can conclude that majority of supporters of 'NCM' belonged to a particular language group. Nothing wrong about it if they support about a particular language based on their expertise. However ganging-up to attack an editor (e.g acts by Mspraveen) is a violation of wikipedia ethics.
- I would also rest this argument for now noting it is big wound to be healed on wikipedia and try to bring it up again at appropriate environment. Hope responsible Admin take care of it.
- By a vagabond from a multi-user system that has not violated Wikipedia guidelines.76.212.3.119 (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Nationalities again
Hi - edits claiming nationality have been appearing yet again over the last few days under another ip 121.218.10.131. Some diffs...
They are also editing individual player articles to insert their unreferenced claims, such as this [212]. Not sure what they are doing - rifling through player's family trees' for references to origins of great-grannies?
If they keep popping up with a new ip I expect there isn't too much you can do, but any assistance would be appreciated. florrie 01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have enacted a fortnight block on the ip. I suppose the response needs to be WP:RBI as the list of target articles is too large to consider semi-protecting without consequences to good faith ip editors. Keep letting me know when a new ip pops up, although you might wish to find another sysop so we can share the "joy" a little (or should I not be available for a day or so). Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I shall spread the love, yes. Thanks again, florrie 00:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
okay, I did....
Oh, it was on a user talk page about the discussion I posted, then undid to your talk page.[213] I'm not inviting you to the discussion, nor do I think you were a particularly excellent example, just the first one I came across, so I am informing you. --21:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, not my finest moment - but I guess you can lift an example of near anyone and cry "ZOMG, abusive admin". I think you may have chosen a more disinterested party than MZMcBride - see a few sections above - but since this is your party I am not interested in responding further. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to pick on you in particular, though. This note was just to let you know I had. And that I had picked you out of laziness on my part, not that you were the best example or even a particularly good example. Yeah, I did run through MZMcBride's edit history. --KP Botany (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree 100 per cent
With [214]. (well, 99.99% - I don't agree with the small slip!) DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The real question
What was he doing talking to a fashion journalist anyway? DuncanHill (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Stemming the tide
You really think it's worth it? Check out this page. Giano asked me to say hi and thanks. Bishonen | talk 00:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC).
- I did at the time, else I would not have written it (and it was very heavily amended from the caustic and sarcastic rant that it was originally), and when I am calmer I will look again and see if it serves any further purpose. Presently, I am still furious that a professional can make such a "mistake" (and when The Sunday Times was still a newspaper of record and thus integrity, such misunderstandings would have resulted in dismissal) and Jimbo penalises the volunteer that responded in such a manner that he departs. As for BLP; I suppose it is right that the lazy, lame and stupid should be protected as well as the great and the good, but the article I have seen was properly referenced and provided the reason for notability in clearly NPOV language - far more so than the current state of British journalism could aspire to generally... Whatever, while I am angry I suppose I am not depressed.
- When next in contact with Giano, say "Hi" back.LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Action (physics) - advice please
I am a relatively inexperienced minor contributor to Wikipedia. I recently rewrote the (hoplessy garbled) intro (leader) to the "Action (physics)" article. This was immediately "corrected" by user JRSpriggs. Since this "correction" resulted in a (in my opinion) broken article (see Talk:Action (physics)#Intro), I reverted the edit (with an appropriate explanation to JRSpriggs personal talk page – more courtesy than he gave me!). Predictably (in retrospect) he re-reverted, pulling "superior knowledge" rank on the talk page (his own talk page suggests a history of rather confontational editing). While I guess you are a busy man, I would be grateful if you could glance at Talk:Action (physics)#Intro, and advise me whether it is (a) desirable (from the point of view of Wikipedia), and (b) advisable (from the point of view of my own time and effort), to pursue this further (and if so, how?).(suggest you reply here)FredV (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I am content to allow Fredvanner the opportunity to expand or otherwise more fully respond to your request, say another 48 hours. I will then ask if there is a reason for not providing either an answer to a direction to where an answer may be found. I have to say that physics is not an area that I am comfortable in claiming any understanding, but I can follow that there is a discrepancy in having concepts particular to quantum physics in the intro which are not part of the article body - a matter that requires addressing (clarity without simplification is a prime concern for any general encyclopedia). However, it would be best to allow all parties the opportunity to allow discourse to develop in the immediate future. Drop me a reminder in a couple of days should there have been no further reply. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
AC poll
Actually, I am flat out against it, but thanks for notifying me. :) — neuro(talk) 23:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- I gathered as much, but I have notified all of the opposer's prior to the introduction of the new section as a matter of courtesy (much like your kind comment here). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
re Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Removal of advanced permissions (proposed)#Neutral
(Answering this[215] comment left on my talk page): No, thank you, I think the entire policy is a badly-written disaster, and I focused in on the part of it that was most specifically detrimental to the Wikipedia project in making my !vote. But thank you for letting me know. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- I gathered as much, but I have notified all of the opposer's prior to the introduction of the new section as a matter of courtesy (much like your kind comment here). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Sock
You're absolutely right. RBI and all that. But it's time for the B part (this particular excursion was made to make a backhanded insult against me; no problems really, as im probably the only one who would notice). Whatever this guys madness is, it must be an odd one. He created dozens of socks going back years for no particular purpose. He would make one, make 10 or so edits, then make another one, and carry on. So it's a big farm, but its bound to reach bottom eventually.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can't find a current User:Lex Luthor to block, and the sockmaster is long since sanctioned. If you can point me a currently editing sock I will willingly smite them, but in that absence it is the I criteria that is to be followed. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- He's a sock of Manhattan Samurai, whose socks charecteristically edited one article for a brief time. Samurai has a deep interest in the Bakshi article, a deep interest in the Monahan article. and here's the latest socks contributions: [[216]]. Notice in the AN/I report this user doesn't mention what user account contacted him, his swipe at me in precisely the same language that all his socks use. Also note that this sock is actively editing, and the editor behind it has declared his intent to fill the encyclopedia with fictional information, if given a chance. It's a duck. But i'll bring it up with other admins if you're not interested. Best Bali ultimate (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is no account named User:Lex Luthor, so I can't block it. If you can provide me with an account name, I will smack them with an admin bit (after a quick review, of course!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Lex Luthor is what MS calls himself. So, my contention is that DFW tragedy = Manhattan Samurai. It's only edits are on one of his articles and GA discussion he was interested in. This is also sort of a classic MS edit summary: [[217]]. It's possible im wrong -- maybe the overlap is that this user was canvassed off line by MS and acted on his behalf in good faith. I'll drop it now, but wanted to be crystal clear about what i was getting at.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Fyi blocked/confirmed sock DFW tragedy
- There is no account named User:Lex Luthor, so I can't block it. If you can provide me with an account name, I will smack them with an admin bit (after a quick review, of course!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- He's a sock of Manhattan Samurai, whose socks charecteristically edited one article for a brief time. Samurai has a deep interest in the Bakshi article, a deep interest in the Monahan article. and here's the latest socks contributions: [[216]]. Notice in the AN/I report this user doesn't mention what user account contacted him, his swipe at me in precisely the same language that all his socks use. Also note that this sock is actively editing, and the editor behind it has declared his intent to fill the encyclopedia with fictional information, if given a chance. It's a duck. But i'll bring it up with other admins if you're not interested. Best Bali ultimate (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Healing Through Remembering
you were kind enough to offer feedback on my attempt at creating a page for the above mentioned organisation. For this I am grateful, and I hope I am approaching acceptability with the ongoing work on the page. Your advice and assistance on this would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anguslambkin (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
legend —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anguslambkin (talk • contribs) 14:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Foot or buttock? ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh wow.
You deleted that G1 page just before my FiOS connection even started loading the page. And I saw it after three seconds. M1N (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- The joys of patrolling Special:RecentChanges... and having a block button. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The school IP thing
I know this is your dissision and what every but I know personally with schools that you will permentally get people editing from it so you may want to consider completely banning the, as if they want to edit the wiki for legitimate reasons (may have spelt that wrong sorry) they can create an account some where else so if they vandalise under a created account they are easier to track. Just a thought, but if you do reply please do at my talk page. Cheers matey, arrrr! 'The Ninjalemming' 20:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Banning
Hi Less, thank you for taking action against the vandal I reported. But, honestly, what does it take to get a person banned? How many times must a person be blocked? (p.s. is the block just for editing, or reading too? Obviously, I don't think people should be banned from READING wiki, just editing it). You can reply on my talk page. Thanks :) Beansandveggies (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, Less, thanks for your help, and your explanation of things (I'm just a Burba ;) I gave you a Barnstar (my first :) Thanks again Beansandveggies (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed; thank you, and I dropped a note for your future reference. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
A-ha! Thanks for educmacating me :) ppreciate it Beansandveggies (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate it. Mr. Vernon (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Re Page
No problem glad to help :)
Happy editing
Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 19:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Different day, same old ...
You are very welcome. I was glad to be of service the other day... it looks like you've stirred something up, or maybe multiple somthings, eh? Good luck. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, and another one
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user talk page! The vandal's back as 59.96.11.176, but you would have noticed that anyway, because it now loves you too :-) --Bonadea (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help with the person (Journalist1983) who undid my additions to the Nancy Jacobson article. Unfortunately, they or one of their sock puppets keeps returning to undo your changes (my additions). I'm new to Wikipedia editing and really not sure how to handle this. What will keep them from continually reverting the changes? --Nacl11 (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have warned the ip on their talkpage, and also undid their edit. Since removing referenced content is considered vandalism then you are permitted to revert them without penalty. If they continue to remove the paragraph revert them and issue a warning, and then report them to WP:AIV. The ip is a dedicated address, so they can be blocked for some length of time without risk of affecting innocent anonymous editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
And still more thanks.
I support a permanent block of that account 100%. Doggone it, you try and assume good faith and the guy turns right around and sticks it to you. In the meantime, I salted the title and if a variation ever appears, I'll salt it as well. Thanks for the update. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I still drop by...
... from time to time --Crestville (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The reason for your addition to the talk page is not the issue and I fully accept the first point you make in your addition. The problem is that your comment goes on to provide your own personal analysis of an alleged serious crime, when the article itself specifically says that was not proven to have occurred. So your statement could be seen to be libellous and should not be on Wikipedia. Your addition then goes own to present what it admits itself to be a rant on a related subject.
My edit did not "alter, amend or otherwise change the meaning" of your addition. What I did do was remove what Wikipedia policies and guidelines say should not have been there in the first place according to talk page guidelines. Talk pages are not the place for you to allege criminal acts, nor for you to provide your own analysis of these alleged acts, nor for you to soapbox your opinions of organisations mentioned in the article. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article.
If you feel I have changed the meaning of what you said then please explain what exactly you did mean by these comments in relation to improving the article and I'll be happy to replace it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- The claim that a policeman struck the blow that resulted in Blairs death is noted in the reference in the article - and I would draw your attention to the article Special Patrol Group, where there is mention of police brutality. If necessary, I can provide references (reliable, from good sources) for both articles regarding allegations of racism, extracurricular attacks on political supporters, illegal weapon holding and suchlike. Therefore what I am repeating as said by others is not libel. I regretably have some experience of the behaviour of the SPG, and am not inclined to have their history whitewashed. I would point out, however, that on this and another occasion I have - despite my personal distaste for the subject - amended edits to a more neutral tone in accordance to WP policy. If you wish me to remove the comment about SPG members being thick racist thugs I shall do so, once you restore the comments I had made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Facts are the article does not say his death was caused by the SPG, it specifically cites that this allegation was rejected as unproven. If you have good cites that say otherwise please add them to the article. Unfortunately your opinions and experiences aren't notable, and the circumstantial details of other cases involving the SPG don't belong on this article. However, if you wish to amend your comment to be in line with talk page guidelines I'm happy to re-instate it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- "Verifiability, not Truth" is the WP requirement; and I can find plenty of references for the allegations that Peach was killed by a policeman - and the article can reflect the quantity and quality of the quotes, and the absence of any other reasonable explanation. While the Met and the SPG may have avoided a finding by not volunteering information (and there was no enquiry, so there was no requirement to make statements) does not mean that good sources cannot be used on Wikipedia to explain why this individual in notable (and Peach's notability is directly related to the allegations that he died following the use of inappropriate force by a police officer. Not to refer to that negates the question of Peach's notability.) When the allegation, substantive and persistant, is established then my referring to same is not libel, but fair comment. I do not hold much hope of your being able to see this however, so I shall edit the article - despite not wishing to previously - in accordance with WP requirement for cited sources to reflect the unrefuted allegations of police brutality. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Facts are the article does not say his death was caused by the SPG, it specifically cites that this allegation was rejected as unproven. If you have good cites that say otherwise please add them to the article. Unfortunately your opinions and experiences aren't notable, and the circumstantial details of other cases involving the SPG don't belong on this article. However, if you wish to amend your comment to be in line with talk page guidelines I'm happy to re-instate it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello LessHeard van. Back in December you blocked Fadulj based on this case. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind reviewing the new case in the header, and consider extending the block length. Once this is done, would you mind posting that you have done so to the case, so I or another clerk may close it. Thank you for your time. Synergy 00:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- It would appear that by the time I could devote some time myself to this matter that it has been attended to. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Why!
Why is it vandilism I told people how to make a rope swing."wow thats real bad"(sarcasim)
--IceRules (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Laughed out of my chair!
You and I had a block conflict on 68.89.139.76 (talk · contribs · block log) (where, interestingly enough, we were both aiming for the exact same block duration). However your summary in the block log made me laugh so hard, I nearly fell out of my chair! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- If your monitor screen has a momentary pink tinge, it is because I am blushing...! LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
Recently the discussion with [User:Harry the Dirty Dog|Harry the Dirty Dog]] reported by Are you ready for IPv6? went from the Edit warring noticeboard to a parallel Incident noticeboard. Would it not be possible to keep everything on one page? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
- Yes, best note on the ANI board that it is being discussed on the 3RR board already. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Our IP friend
Can we do something about 94.192.38.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? A short look at his recent contribution history will show what I'm talking about. THF (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Don't be endeared by this request. THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a vandal and thinks it appropriate to revert all my edits because he had a disagreement. He is being reported for disruptive activity. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- As you can see I have a static IP and have demonstrated I am not vandal by my edit history. You should look at THP's edit history and see what he does when he gets bored. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- This edit summary does not give me any confidence you are acting in good faith, as is referring to THF as a vandal when they have a long history of contributing to the encyclopedia. I shall not block for the present, but if THF reports any further bad faith edits by you I shall do so; I suggest you consider your next few edits very carefully. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
For making threats, you are not acting in good faith. If I am blocked I will simply register an account and then you have a bigger problem. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
USANA in the News
Do you know of any Wikipedia editors that speak French? A Quebec news show has done a broadcast on USANA and I'd like to know if there is anything meaningful in it which could update the Wikipedia entry.
http://www.radio-canada.ca/emissions/la_facture/2008-2009/Reportage.asp?idDoc=75158
Jean314 (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Mais non, mon amai (le spellink?). Try looking for a Category like French speaking Wikipedians. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 02:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I shall not be participating - I am not keen on the fellows tone nor modus operandi, and especially trying to deprecate WP:ANI while maintaining that IRC discussions are impactable upon WP actions, but I believe he does things in good faith and is likely to be a net benefit to the community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Noyce in the cotext of early 20C analytic philosophy.
Hello Mark,
I did not realise that my edit to Jonathan Noyce constituted vandalism, the subject matter is very important to Jon, who happens to be a friend of mine, and is crucially involved in his approach to composition. However if the edit was inappropriate then I can only apologise. Regards Ross. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.239.199 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you can find independent reliable sources with which to reference the philosophical concerns of Mr Noyce, then they might be deemed suitable for inclusion in the article. Without cites, however, the content will be removed as seemingly gibberish of no connection to Mr Noyces primary notability, that of being a bassist for Jethro Tull. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi there; are you sure about the indefblock of this editor? I see a number of text revisions, where an initial talkpage discussion would have been helpful, but they give the impression of being good-faith. And I see some removal of spam, but no insertion. I may be being naive, and do not hesitate to say so if I am; you would not be the first! --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- You are right; I was completely wrong to block this editor - I got one of the good guys instead of the vandal. I have unblocked the account, removed the autoblocks, noted the acceptance of the unblock with apologies... You may or may not be naive, but you were on the money in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Beastiepaws (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Talk:list of youtube celebrities
I saw your comment i was just wondering if it was directed to me or the other user? Kyle1278 (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- I was referring to the ip criticising your use of "dose" instead of "does" - I was commenting that in pointing out the mistakes of others it behoves the pointer that their own script should be perfect; I pointed out some obvious grammar mistakes... Now, I shouldn't do that but since another admin had already responded to your noticeboard complaint by suggesting you ignore and move on I thought I would give an ip a taste of their own medicine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Block rationales
Please be more careful when blocking accounts such as user:Ziba Kazemi Foundation Official; this is clearly not vandalism per se. Non-constructive, yes, but also it is quite clearly not malicious. Such people can become quite upset when they are told that they have been vandals. DS (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with your assesment; they were notified clearly and specifically why their edits were wrong, and they were warned of the consequences of continuing to disrupt the article/encyclopedia over the course of four separate messages - failure to heed courteous notices of the effect of their actions indicates an intent to continue violating policies and therefore disrupt the encyclopedia and that constitutes vandalism (in my book, YMMV.) One may in pursuit of "the truth" spraypaint ones message regarding the decline of democracy upon the walls of the local political parties office walls in all good faith, but you are still vandalising the property. Same here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Glencartwright
I think the nonsense and worse edits by User:Glencartwright warrant more than talk page warnings, in particular because of this attack on my talk page. Clearly, I am biased because his worst efforts were on me. Do you have time to look into it? In particular, check out his contributions: 75% vandalism, nonsense, and attacks. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- 75%? As I regard nonsense and personal attacks vandalism of itself I should say near 95% (the remainder being the one time he reverted himself). Under the circumstances I have indefinitely blocked the account. I would, however, suggest that in future such requests be made to WP:ANI; obvious cases like this will be dealt with by the first sysop that responds, and matters which are less straight forward need to be shown as being enacted upon consensus - it may take a little longer but the result will likely stick. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- First, thanks! Re: 75%. I wasn't sure about the Boer War stuff; it didn't look right. I forgot the proceedure and so I went to you, but in the future I'll go to WP:ANI. I hope I don't need to do that, of course! — John Cardinal (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The user is restoring the text you deleted when you stamped their page with the idef block notice.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- That is not going to get them unblocked any time soon. Under the circumstances, I suggest ignoring it until they make a personal attack. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
AN
Please see. This is not a question of your judgment but does involve a user that you blocked. I wish to focus only on that user and the length of the block. I believe a standard unblock template would be unnecessary in this case. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Tarsky
If you haven't seen this yet, I would suggest you do. I do not feel that this legitimizes the block as they are for two different things. I am sure it ends the matter, at least as Tarysky is concerned. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Noted. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome!
Nice to know there's someone else here!Grannygrammar (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem
My pleasure, thanks SpitfireTally-ho! 21:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
User S1980
hi LessHeard, thanks for the welcome. I take your points on the fact that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a promotional tool, however should this preclude one from monitoring accuracy and updating Wikipedia articles in arenas one is involved with? (Seanessy1980 (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC))
Thanks for Blocking
Just a quick note to say thanks for blocking anon 90.197.239.74, as you may have been able to tell that was rather a *hem hem* personal issue for me. In all seriousness though, I know admins don't get thanked for things like this much, so just quickly letting you know all your work is much appreciated, cheers SpitfireTally-ho! 22:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. However, you might be interested in the addition I made to my userpage after you, and others, kindly removed some vandalism from it. If you are not offended by the phrase it loses its ability to hurt you if used pejoratively (and you don't even have to be gay). It won't stop the really stupid vandals - which is a point worth raising of itself. Cheers, old bean - take the old kite up for a spin, what? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- A very good point, and one with which I agree, SpitfireTally-ho! 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- What, taking the Spit for a flight? I have to admit I am a Sydney Camm fan myself, but Reg did a fine job... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- A very good point, and one with which I agree, SpitfireTally-ho! 22:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Wrong Block?
Hi regarding this edit I think the IP user was in fact reverting vandalism done by another IP. So I think it was user talk:67.185.206.74 who "wiped the today's featured article" and deserves the block instead, Best --DFS454 (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, that is twice this week - which doubles my "block in error" stats over the last two years. I may need to take a break. Thanks for the heads up, I have unblocked and apologised on the ip's talkpage. I will check if the vandal ip has edited since, I am not going to risk a block on an inactive account under the circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Heh! No offense taken.
Flagged revisions proposal
Hi. I am working on a minimal flagged revisions proposal focused on BLPs. FR may seem dead, but I think we can gain consensus on something small and focused. If you have time, any comments are appreciated. Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions#Let.27s_see_what_we_can_get --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you...
...for your advice and support. We'll see how things go in a few months. ArbCom, you say? So is that path any easier? Or do you just want to watch me fending off more arrows. :) :) :) Hmmm... Truth to tell, what I'd really like to do is to be a checkuser. That area seems to be really backlogged, and vandal-and-sock hunting is something I sort of like to do. However, aside from what it might take to pass the fire-and-bullets test to get that job, I gather that it requires a level of technical sophistication that I lack. Anyway, this RfA (Request for Arrows) was a good learning experience (learning experiences often come hard), and I'll tone down some things but I won't turn them off totally. When that one guy accused me of "trolling" the ANI page, after having done what I thought was productive work with minimal drama, my suspicions that they just want me off their playground were upheld. So I won't stop, I'll just be a little more discreet and a little less ubiquitous (how many 13 1/2 year olds know that word?) Now I have to go do some work on my user page, for the benefit of the humor-impaired. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- ArbCom was a joke suggestion; if you think RfA can be a bit fraying... Glad you are intending to keep providing input at the Noticeboards, all the same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I figured. :) So, what general types of technical know-how are required to be a checkuser? Also, if you could take a second to look at my user page and talk page, I haven't made huge changes, but I took away the simulated official templates as the one guy griped about; added warnings at the top not to take it all seriously; also put put the little rollbacker icon up top as rollbackers tend to do (as with admins also) - unless there's concern someone might confuse it with the admin icon. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Re CU technical knowhow, I think the ability to understand WHOIS and ip ranges and be able to determine the likelihood of two ip addresses as being used by one editor (CU's are given the ability, among other things, to see the underlying ip of an account - so being able to tally two ip addresses takes on new significance when you can see user accounts ip) as well as recognising editing similarities. The best place is to look over the CU's noticeboard and see if there is any help you can give, as well as the WP:SPI pages.
- As regards your pages, I think you should have them as you see fit - some people will never be happy anyway, and they serve to reflect the user and not some third party's beliefs how they should look like. Cutting down on the jokes is fine, since you are serious about editing WP, but removing them totally would not be indicative of the... er... non serious dialogue you sometimes indulge in. Mind you, you are asking someone with what is in some quarters considered a disturbing piccy on their own userpage - so take the my comments under advisement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I made some changes to address their specific complaints. I had seen others raise concerns, maybe at the AN page (not ANI) about screen features that imitate "official" wikipedia templates, so I got rid of those and added a plain-as-day disclaimer that not everything here is to be taken seriously. One way to look at it is that I "dumbed it down" for the humor-challenged. I hadn't really even noticed your user page. I don't pay much attention to user pages. It's your user page, and unless you post something advocating violence or extreme viewpoints, it's really none of my concern. I'm tempted to post a quote from Alan King at the top of my page, but it might be viewed as confrontational: "The world is full of little dictators trying to run your life." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes a little "reaction" is all that is needed to indicate that you have listened; it is difficult to prove that you listened, weighed the arguments carefully, and determined you were right all along and therefore left it as it was... LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I made some changes to address their specific complaints. I had seen others raise concerns, maybe at the AN page (not ANI) about screen features that imitate "official" wikipedia templates, so I got rid of those and added a plain-as-day disclaimer that not everything here is to be taken seriously. One way to look at it is that I "dumbed it down" for the humor-challenged. I hadn't really even noticed your user page. I don't pay much attention to user pages. It's your user page, and unless you post something advocating violence or extreme viewpoints, it's really none of my concern. I'm tempted to post a quote from Alan King at the top of my page, but it might be viewed as confrontational: "The world is full of little dictators trying to run your life." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I figured. :) So, what general types of technical know-how are required to be a checkuser? Also, if you could take a second to look at my user page and talk page, I haven't made huge changes, but I took away the simulated official templates as the one guy griped about; added warnings at the top not to take it all seriously; also put put the little rollbacker icon up top as rollbackers tend to do (as with admins also) - unless there's concern someone might confuse it with the admin icon. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou for the advice
I shall keep that in mind hereafter. He issues personal threats and abuses. I guess seeing all this another editor emailed me. If you are an admin, I can forward the email to you. I was asked not to go on edit war with him any more. So I stopped doing it. But he seems very interested in posting abuses and threats to me. --Radhakrishnansk (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- You will need the permission of the other editor, who emailed you, to pass it on. However, it doesn't matter who the editor is personally, providing that their account adheres to Wikipedia policy and guideline (as do you). It is better to deal with the matter transparently, such as is hopefully happening at WP:ANI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed personal information regarding the User: Kuntan as per your direction; I appologise for doing so. I though I could share that information as it was yet another wiki editor who email me. Personally I had not clue of who this IP address is. I traced the IP to a city called Kottayam in Kerala but means of the IP trace tool.--Radhakrishnansk (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Tendentious?
At Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC one side, mine, provided a ton of evidence, detailed citations of WP policy and reasonable argument, then got 2/3 support in an RfC, and Wikidemon, on the other side, simply refused to recognize that, and didn't provide anything like the evidence or argumentation, then derailed the results by refusing to recognize that clear consensus on each of the article pages where the attempt was made to implement it. That's what tendentiousness is. Trying to get the best sources and follow WP policy is an indication of trying to be fair. That episode with Wikidemon derailing the RfC results what enraged me about Wikidemon months ago. My mistake. If you're going to call anyone tendentious, don't rely on past AN/I comments from lazy, biased editors. Rely on the facts. -- Noroton (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- The above is a complete misstatement of what happened. But I will not re-argue the past. Part of the problem here is that we should not be re-arguing the past. The decision was made to give Noroton two long blocks, and the administrators were pretty adamant about the need to stop. It's started again. Very simple. Can we please find a way to urge Noroton to stop attacking me on Wikipedia? Wikidemon (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Disney Vandal?
Thanks for your help dealing with that pesky IP. I've been with WP for a couple of years now, but I don't think I've heard of the "Disney Vandal," even though I frequent many of the Disney articles. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. If you wish to learn more, and frequenting the articles you do I suspect you might, go to either WP:AN or WP:ANI and type in "Disney vandal" in the archive search field near the top of the page. You may wish to make yourself a drink and plump up the cushion before you start reading, though... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- For your convenience, the bulk of the links on the history of this kid are available at the top of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Should they have searched the noticeboard archives they will have hopefully found that page, but only after finding out that there are admins who are dealing with the case. It might be a bit daunting to suddenly see how vast the sockfarm is without knowing if it is being combated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Collectonian and Dream Focus
As that discussion on my talk page wasn't really going anywhere, I think everyone would be better served by taking the issue to RfC/U. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fine. The RfC may point toward such a restriction as a proposed outcome, if desired. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, assuming Collectonian or Dream Focus file an RfC/U. If not, I'm not sure what we can do. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Third party RfC/U? That way both editors conduct can be looked at, with a view to diminishing future problems with other parties over the same issues. If Sephiroth BCR - the obvious current involved editor - wishes to file it I will certainly certify. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- We have a winner; it fits nicely within what's specified as RfC/U minimum requirements, so it will definitely work. :D :D :D I'll point Sephiroth BCR to this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be a lengthy discussion about DF on ANI. I'd have said something if I had a bit more time, but I think some editors are making that difficult (eg; when an admin made a comment at the discussion, an editor brought that admin's RfC up). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am aware of it but it had started while I was away and by the time I read into it I didn't feel that I would be providing anything new - and I didn't wish to be part of a pile on, either. If anyone requests my help/comments I shall be happy to provide what I can, but will otherwise just keep a watching brief. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be a lengthy discussion about DF on ANI. I'd have said something if I had a bit more time, but I think some editors are making that difficult (eg; when an admin made a comment at the discussion, an editor brought that admin's RfC up). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- We have a winner; it fits nicely within what's specified as RfC/U minimum requirements, so it will definitely work. :D :D :D I'll point Sephiroth BCR to this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Third party RfC/U? That way both editors conduct can be looked at, with a view to diminishing future problems with other parties over the same issues. If Sephiroth BCR - the obvious current involved editor - wishes to file it I will certainly certify. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, assuming Collectonian or Dream Focus file an RfC/U. If not, I'm not sure what we can do. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Gillian Hiscott
Re: Gillian Hiscott Hello, I note you blocked and prevent me from re-creating my article. Please advise as I am not very adept on wikipaedia and do not want to risk my reputation on the net.
Regards the deletion - although I understand that being the partner of a print firm is irrelevant as far as notability is concerned, and that The Library Theatre is unimportant, The article was initially created in order to provide general information on me, as a playwright, for professional individuals who work with me in the theatre industry, and always look up everyone else on a team. I have no great knowledge on what is required, nor the patience to learn and no doubt worded things wrongly. However it has been there for over a year and some administrators had kindly contributed to get it in better shape.
I understood, that authors have a placing on the site, so long as they are not self published, or published by vanity publishers.
I have plays published with play publishers Cressrelles and Jasper Publishing who are not in the least connected to me in business nor vanity publishers . A few of these are adaptations of classic novels which have been used by professional companies. Therefore companies who are considering performing the plays may wish to look me up, as did recently a professional theatre in Budapest who are currently adapting one of my plays for performance.
I have a novel published by small publishing company Seventh Wave Publiscations, which was initially in the top 20s list for it’s genre (fiction WW2) by major British book retailer Waterstones. It’s dropped down the list a little because there aren’t any left. There is shortly to be a re-print and re-sales of the first edition are at on sale at Amazon, they range from $30 – 60
Maybe a simple list of my publications would be acceptable, but cannot risk re-creating the article if administrators automatically believe it should be deleted. I feel a little hard done by as people with less achievements still have articles.
Any further opinion or advice? Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillhiscott (talk • contribs) 19:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your advice. I understand a little more now, and that my article was exposed because of a lack of citations etc., which I am able to do.
I note you said previously that you would be able to retrieve the page into my useraccount for me to work on. Is this still possible? I am only thinking that if I create a new page then the old one still exists as a deletion, which may not be a good idea. If I re-work the deleted one, is that better than creating a new one or doesn't it make any difference? I am only concerned that the deleted one still being in existance means that I would just be blocked again. Thank you. I note you live in Cornwall - so do I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillhiscott (talk • contribs) 17:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Less, you might want to check Gillian's contribs. She's been harassing the users who said delete in the AfD, continuing to spam other articles, and removing notices on her talk page trying to explain to her why her edits were inappropriate, COI, etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed. I also noticed that she was temporarily blocked for having a username that was an advert - which, if it is her real name as I AGF it is, would make it extremely difficult for someone like, say, Jimbo Wales to edit WP on the same basis. How is your own name an advert, if it is suggested you are not notable? I don't think anyone was coming out of this particularly well, so I am hoping that getting an encyclopedic stub of an article will diffuse the situation - and I note that my comments and suggestions are not being summarily removed, so it may be the manner of the communication (we are also both old farts, which may also help) - and that in doing so she will come to understand better how to use the processes. Not every editor has the smoothest of starts, and sometimes they have to be given time to get the right understanding. If they do not learn, then that is something to be dealt with in the future.
- Thanks for taking the time to comment, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you that's great. I will have a go but my main wish is that the deletion log and discussion left open will close down, and that the present google entry on me for wikipaedia will disappear as it goes straight to the deletion log. Will this happen automatically in due time or is there anyway of closing down the log so it will disappear from the net? (Gillhiscott (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
Gillian Hiscott
No - the ISBNs I have mentioned don't relate to the original novels but to my published adaptations, which in turn have their own ISBN number and are listed at the ISBN Agency. I put the ISBN numbers back in together with the Publisher's names where the plays can be found. They can also be found at the British Cataloguing Library or ISBN Agency.
With regards the listing at Waterstones. The situation of a publisher being able to call a book a bestseller stems from it having reached a certain level on a reliable list. Hence there being so many apparent "bestsellers" around. The book is still listed but dropped down the list from it's original placing, which was in the 20s and so qualified. The list keeps shifting as books are added and no copy has been kept, my book I think is now about 60 out of 810, mainly because the book is on a re-print. I guess I'll just have to wait and see if it goes up again and make sure a copy is saved. All these things are usually done by a writer's agent and I don't yet have one.
I have written down a few of the papers I have been reviewed in but have yet to add the dates. Still a work in progress. But the wiki listing on the net has dropped away so I'm not so wound up about it. Should be writing anyway not worryhing about this stuff! Best wishes (Gillhiscott (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC))
- I apologise for misunderstanding the ISBN situation. I will review the section to see if it is readily apparent. I do not know if the Waterstones website has an archive, to be able to find a "top 20" listing - or if your local library has a database which might be accessed. Per your last comment, in respect of the review sources, it is often the case that WP is found to take up much more time than it at first appeared would - you may have to restrict yourself to only working on it for a certain percentage of a time period... (says the guy who logs on every lunchtime and workday evening and most of the weekend...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for helping to close the conflict of interest discussion. I've finished editing and adding information in my archives onto the page User_talk:Gillhiscott/Gillian_Hiscott and it has been a very useful and enjoyable exercise not only in providing a record, which has never been done, but learning more how to use the site and edit. I'd like the page to go the mainpage again but don't know how to transfer it. Please could you check it and do anything or let me know what else is necessary. I tried having a go at providing exetrnal links to the Cressrelles and Jaspers sites and some of the (better) reviews in newspapers but gave up on that one. It seems to me that this can be construed as advertising though. Anyow I was able to trace some of the books through the ISBN links mentioned. With regards the bestselling thing, someone else pointed out to me, as I did, how difficult it is to pin down links to a bestseller list, because of their volatile nature - next week it can be so far down the list as to be totally irrelevant so have refrained from using the term "bestseller", which in the commercial world is used so freely and difficult to prove. Also if it goes on the main page, is there a way of ensuring that other adminstrators don't simply delete again as an already deleted item? Thanks (Gillhiscott (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
Of course I should be concentrating on my career but am hanging around waiting for things to happen, i.e. a re-print and encountering a writer's block so this is diverting me. I can still log into Exeter, but yesterday I did find links to the books through these pages, and located several of the reviews but was just not skilled enough to make them happen properly on the article. I was turning to you because you are local and English whilst some of the others seemed US based, but the gordonofcartoon guy seems very knowledgable about books and he might be the one to consult. I'm sure the article will go back up eventually - The original one was on the site for over a year, nurtured and edited probably by Marie Corelli fans who also took care of the listing about my efforts on her behalf, created a legacy heading, which originaly was entirely about me of Marie Corelli, now callously deleted by nuttah, who seems to me to be less than reputable in his editing. This is one of the main reasons why I wanted to give myself creditability. I note the comment about the use of my real name for a username. This was an entirely innocent action - not in any way an attempt at self promotion. I did it because I wanted to be honest about who I was. Best wishes (Gillhiscott (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)) Left a message on my user page. Never know where to leave them! (Gillhiscott (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC))
You ae spectacularly right! WP guidelines or no. I've been hanging around with too many highly strung actors. Anyhow the I've linked up the publications as far as I can and won't be doing any more with the reviews some have fallen into the newspapers archives and some I wouldn't want seen anyway!. Could you have a quick look please and let me know if it's OK for the main page and how to get it there. Didn't know I could just so easily link up the the publisher's page, but this is by far the best way to trace them since playbooks don't behave on the market like normal books. Hope this is acceptable. Thanks [[[User:Gillhiscott|Gillhiscott]] (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)]
semi-protection of my userpage
Thank you, that's very appreciated, three days is perfect thanks, all the best SpitfireTally-ho! 05:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
More vandalism by 216.25.247.247
You blocked 216.25.247.247 for a week, but they have come back and done the same format-breaking vandalism on WinMX. They (and .245 and .246) keep removing line feeds from apparently random articles. - Ttwaring (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think we should allow them to provide themselves with a little more rope, and then I can block all three addresses for a longer period (3 months?). One post block edit, even if it is the same as the previous edits, is not sufficient to be sanctioned again. Thanks for bringing it to my notice, though, and do let me know if there are further examples. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!
Thanks so much for the reversions done on my talk page! --♥pashtun ismailiyya 23:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, thanks! Could I then, also have the same three edits removed from my user page's history too? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 23:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Ummmm
I think that a user that you blocked recently is creating sockpuppets. Abce2 (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Abce2
A terroist...
...is someone who sprays people with this. HalfShadow 02:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Quite a few...um,...interesting names going through the protection log. You're not going to scare Uncle Halfy and tell me they're all attributed to one guy, are you? HalfShadow 02:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Protection Question
When you mass-protect articles (as you are doing now in terms of those BLP-violating redirects) do you think up redirects that haven't been used that and block them too? Would that help or no in the long run? Just curious. And off topic, I've seen your picture on your page and I must say I've always pictured you as having a big thick beard for some reason. D: -WarthogDemon 03:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, I am not pre-guessing terms of abuse with a view to protecting - I have been playing catch up this last many minutes, simply by going through (deleted) contributions. You might notice that I am placing a few titles under semi-protection; in case some rap artists decides to "own" a term of abuse (like they have with nigger/nigga) and release a record and an established editor needs to create an article on it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see then. Thanks. Found another one for you... Nigger piece of crap. -WarthogDemon 03:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I had gone to bed by the time you wrote, but being a wiki the problem was fixed by someone else. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see then. Thanks. Found another one for you... Nigger piece of crap. -WarthogDemon 03:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
protection
About totse.com there is an official successor that is zoklet.net/bbs/ Zok was a long time moderator on the site and most of the community went to his site. There is also a number of spammers trying to start up clones of totse, they constantly spam zoklet trying to get the community to come to a copy of totse and start back up again. But the official place where most of the community left to is Zoklet.net/bbs/if you could add that to the totse.com page that would be cool. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.120.152 (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Should zoklet become notable of itself this fact might be mentioned, but it has no bearing on the Totse article or the subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
New Rochelle discussion notice
New Rochelle problem discussion notification: I've opened a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Long-running problem with respect to New Rochelle area articles.
This relates to the 4 part proposal i opened on March 26, which was closed on March 27 and archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#Proposal for unban, apology, amnesty for Jvolkblum and related others, and topic ban for Orlady.
This is a courtesy notice to all parties who had more than a one word comment in the previous discussion. I think it is a problem that won't go away, and I hope that you will be part of the solution, whether or not you and I have agreed previously. I hope that we can at least clarify the problem, if not immediately agree upon a solution. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate canvassing, I am sure they will express that. I don't anticipate too many separated discussions on this topic, but if this one is closed and a new one opens, I'll probably notify you again, unless you ask me not to. doncram (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Problematic Article
Dear Mr.Slater, I am writing you in order to ask you for help. In the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darko_Trifunovic the group of Wikipadia vandals posted lies and not supported quotation. I can't expose evidence regardless of fact that I invited all interesting parties to work together in order to improve the quality of the article. Please help. Preceding was posted to my userpage by Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs)
- Mr Trifunovic, I have already advised you that you need to contact WP:OFFICE regarding your concerns. My (brief) review of the article is that the claims are verified (which does not mean they are true necessarily, but have been reported in reputable sources) and meet the standards for inclusion. Since this is an editorial matter I cannot intervene as an administrator, and therefore the Office is the only venue open to you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Request for arbitration - Unjustified ban of users
I have filed a request for arbitration regarding recent bans of user accounts from which no activities could be found that dispupt Wikipedia. The arbitration request can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Block of editors related to sockpuppet Jvolkblum You are not mentioned as an involved party, I send you this message as a courtesy for your information, and I hope that your opinion there can contribute to solve the issue. Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 23:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
This editor popped up at Talk:Bob Ross to voice his view on the removal of the trivia/pop culture section from 2007 by leading off with a personal attack calling me a wikinazi. After it was removed and he was warned several times, he finally stopped adding the personal attack and stuck to just adding his view that the section should be retained. He left one final note on my talk page claiming I was "harrassing" him for not allowing his personal attack to stand and for warning him.[218] However, I feel his notification of 7 editors,[219][220][221][222][223][224][225] those who had at one time said they also liked the section, is a gross violation of WP:CANVASS, but am unsure where to go from here. Obviously I'm no longer neutral due to the initial skirmish there and on my talk page. Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The Admins Barnstar
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| Dear LessHeard vanU, I present this barnstar to you, in personal recognition of the work you do behind the scenes, no doubt tedious, but needed. My support, thanks, and good luck wishes are with you! 09:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC) |
Yes, I don't think appreciation is shown very often these days, no surprise you forgot one existed then :-D. Happy editing!
Judicatus | Talk | Contributions
00:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you!
Hello LessHeard vanU, I'd like to thank you for your kind help regarding User:Bigsaidlover. And I must say, I appreciated your witty and ironic comment very much! Best regards, --Catgut (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I look forward to pleading for your assistance in my desysop case... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- This user appears to be evading the block under the cunning name Bigsaidlover2. He also obviously used various socks before he became Bigsaidlover. Paul B (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- In addition to the fiendishly clever deception "Bigsaidlover2", he appears to be User:Enigmaofarrival, User:Bigwikiguy and User:Kcboat. Paul B (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry LessHeard, but given the amount of rubbish that has been directed towards this editor in the past, WP:OUTING and WP:HARRASS are entirely relevant. Please don't justify the past rubbish by editors. Additionally, User_talk:Alex_Bakharev/Archive23#Tomb_of_the_unknown_rapist demonstrates the attempts at WP:OUTING and WP:HARRASS dating back to December 2008 (and probably before that, given the people involved). This has to be taken into account with the current crusade. So again, please do not justify harrassment of other editors, regardless of current issues. I will also note, I was blocked for 2 weeks for placing a COI template on another editor's talk page, yet nothing happens here. Take note of that. --Russavia Dialogue 22:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The account edits under a specific name, which is also a name relevant to the article they edit. I re-iterate, WP:OUTING is not relevant when an editor is requested they confirm or otherwise that the publicly seen username is that of their real life identity. If it is, then they have released that information already (even if it isn't the person involved within the subject matter) and if it isn't then no personal information is released - there a few other millions of English speaking net savvy people they could be - but they should be aware of the possibilities of being seen to impersonate that individual. As for harassment, what are you referring to? This specific matter appears clear cut enough, it is a COI enquiry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
::I guess you are not well-versed in the bullshit of the Eastern European areas of WP. You have the link from the talk page above. The basic calling other people of writing hate speech (off-wiki). This is all part of a long-period of harrassment by various editors against this person. You may want to check WP:DIGWUREN to see exactly what I am talking about. Additionally, User:Petri Krohn at no time has tried to emulate "Petri Krohn", the non-notable individual who has a few lines in a media report.Hence why I have said to Petri on his talk page, he is under no obligation to fulfill demands. Particularly when the editor demanding it, states "Is this the same Petri Krohn who was banned from english Wikipedia for inciting ethnic hatred against Estonian editors?". There is no reason to doubt that this is User:Martintg is there? But it's offwiki, so it stays off-wiki. And given that there are no major WP:NPOV problems with the edits of User:Petri Krohn, it's about time that people saw harrassment for what it is, rather than making excuses for it. --Russavia Dialogue 23:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Russavia is referring to a separate issue, which has been treated last year here. Martintg (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me just say this LessHeard, given the past history of interactions between these editors, Martintg asking these questions is somewhat inappropriate. As I said, this can be construed as outting or harrasment, given WP:DIGWUREN and the bullshit contained therein. If it were someone uninvolved who approached him, it looks completely different than what it does "from the inside" of this area of dispute. As you are aware, what people say offwiki stays offwiki. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and the internet allows for this. If you believe that User:Petri Krohn needs to declare his identify under WP:REALNAME, then I will encourage him to do this. But I will ask, would you take action if Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Editors_warned and Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions were breached. For instance, on Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee there was an IP editor editing who some believed (but not confirmed) was Johan Bäckman. For example, comments such as what are at Talk:Finnish_Anti-Fascist_Committee#Allegation_of_neo-stalinismn are inappropriate, and the editor has been reminded of this (and I am not asking for action on that). But if User:Petri Krohn confirms that he is Petri Krohn, so long as he complies with core policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:NOT, etc, (and that Arbcom) there is no reason that he can not edit WP. And he is entitled to do this in peace. Let's just say that knowing this area, it would not be long until all sort of incivility would be taking place in regards to this editor and that can not allowed to be acceptable behaviour. We can not place expectations on Petri Krohn that we do not place upon other editors, for that is not how Wikipedia does, or should, operate. Your comments on that are welcomed. --Russavia Dialogue 00:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Good choice in section name. All that is being asked here is clarification of name, per WP:REALNAME, for COI reasons in regard to a particular article. Petri has been well behaved here since his return from his ban, you are not doing him any favours with this wiki-drama. Martintg (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- There's no wikidrama here. It is acknowledging that this area of editting has a lot of bad blood in it, which unfortunately even I have been dragged into at times, and my questions to LessHeard are asking him whether he will be willing to look at any issues, if and when they arise. It isn't purely WP:REALNAME and WP:COI in play here, but a long history of crap in this area of editting, and knowledge of how editors operate. That is it, pure and simple. --Russavia Dialogue 01:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are a relative new comer to the issues of Eastern Europe, which have been covered in several ArbCom cases. I don't recall you being involved in any of these cases so you really do not know what the full history is or what the real problems are. No one dragged you into this particular issue, you injected yourself into it. You like to wiki-link policies in your responses, how about you check out the wiki-link WP:AGF. Martintg (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are right, I am a new comer. I may have injected myself into this area of editing, but I most definitely have been dragged into the masses of bullshit in this area, because you mention there have been several Arbcom cases which I have not been party too. Now, I am assuming good faith with what I write, so I would appreciate the same. But as you, yourself have stated, there have been several Arbcom cases in this area of editing, which means the bullshit in this area just keeps on going on. And that is unacceptable, and because there have been several Arbcom cases, that is reason enough to know that problems with arise in the future, and this is what I am trying to discuss with LessHeard. --Russavia Dialogue 04:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are a relative new comer to the issues of Eastern Europe, which have been covered in several ArbCom cases. I don't recall you being involved in any of these cases so you really do not know what the full history is or what the real problems are. No one dragged you into this particular issue, you injected yourself into it. You like to wiki-link policies in your responses, how about you check out the wiki-link WP:AGF. Martintg (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- There's no wikidrama here. It is acknowledging that this area of editting has a lot of bad blood in it, which unfortunately even I have been dragged into at times, and my questions to LessHeard are asking him whether he will be willing to look at any issues, if and when they arise. It isn't purely WP:REALNAME and WP:COI in play here, but a long history of crap in this area of editting, and knowledge of how editors operate. That is it, pure and simple. --Russavia Dialogue 01:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding any history, the request for clarification in respect of this matter is well made and appropriate - references to other, perhaps related, matters helps not at all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Some more frippery
|
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| To LessHeard vanU, because he is a fine and fair administrator. Period. Catgut (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC) |
- Congrats on the barnstar! And sorry for the edit conflicts. I think the incivility is pretty clear, but blocking without warning first might warrant a reprieve. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- It happens (ec's - not barnstars!). I would gently point out that the block rationale is violation of NPA - which also seems problematic to my review of the policy. Ironically, a block under incivility may have been less arguable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
a questionable question
You and I have made peace, I hope. I posted a peace to you and you accepted. That was long ago. My negative feelings toward you arose because you blocked me without warning. So I am surprised to see a statement from you that you have never heard of such a thing. What gives? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Context - for comments made during an Request for Adminship; an area where passions are known to be raised and injudicious language employed, and taken into account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK. So blocking without warning is done, I take it, in other contexts. An admin said he should have blocked me without warning for a joking comment made on my own talk page, even though the "victim" acknowledged my comment was a joke at the time it was made. That was a close call for me! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- It can be done, yes, if the situation warrants it - and it is advisable that it is reviewed promptly by third parties if in any doubt. It is something of the reason why Admins need to demonstrate knowledge of the policies, but more particularly the trust of the community in acquiring and continuing to keep the mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Are the kinds of uncivil comments Giano II regularly makes to people, including me, OK? For example, he calls me a troll and other unflattering names and ridicules me, and I am told to ignore the comments. Now I avoid areas of Wikipedia like FAR because of the stress these remarks cause. It seems to me that the more outrageous an editor is, and I am thinking of another recent case, the more that editor is allowed to call people liars, sock puppets, trolls, idiots etc. It almost seems like it is better to build up a reputation as a discourteous editor, as that way more will be tolerated. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Giano is a good example - for he will provide a rationale for why he uses phrases (see the current block discussion) which may appear uncivil. You will see that I am pussyfooting around by using the term "falsehood", whereas Giano will bluntly say "lie" and refer to the matter in hand. He may be mistaken, and he may be excessive, but he is operating within the bounds of WP:NPA. You, of course, take issue with both the implication and the terminology, but you have also been known to speak plainly in what you see are mistruths and misrepresentations. The only difference is in whose perception of truth and mistaken understandings one perceives to be based in a defendable reality. In most issues (but not all) I have tended to side with Giano. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I hope you would stand up for me as you do for Giano. I don't call people names. I don't make it impossible for someone to post in areas of Wikipedia. I don't have a clique of people who harass others into submission so that an article cannot be improved, to Wikipedia standards. I don't own articles. If you put me in the same category as Giano, then I have some serious thinking to do about whether I should be participating in Wikipedia. If I am any where never that much of a negative influence, then I ought not to be posting anywhere. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Um, I am not altogether in agreement with your assessment- I refer to the ArbCom related to Zearaph (sp? close enough!) and the more recent matter involving Sandy Georgia. While I don't get involved I am not unfamiliar with some of the issues regarding your interactions with some editors. Nobodies perfect, and no-one is always the innocent victim of circumstance, but - yes - if I consider you to be the wronged party (as I did with Cyborg Ninja) then I will act in your interests if requested. Not, however, if I didn't. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I had nothing to do with Zearaph, other than that editor stalked me and SandyGeorgia defended me; after SlimVirgin unblocked Zearaph, SandyGeorgia and she got into it. I was not involved in the Arbitration, except to make one comment supporting SandyGeorgia. Later SandyGeorgia turned on me and initiated an RFC against me, at which I received mostly support because of the lack of evidence. It seemed vindictive. I did go overboard at the RFC as I was taken aback at it, since no one had tried to solve anything prior to filing it; I did lose respect for those that filed it. I should have not responded. Before it was even over, SandyGeorgia invited me back to work on FAC, but I will never do work there again. I am appreciated at other places at Wikipedia. There are people for whom I will copy edit an FAC, but only a few. I just copy edited Murray Chotiner to FA status for an editor. But I don't do the workhorse bit anymore. I don't feel any responsibility like I did before to help out there. So if that puts me in Giano's category, then I will think about whether I will even continue doing what I do.
- It does seem better to be a bad ass here. I finally put a warning on Giano's page, after a series of attacks. I received a flock of comments on my page, telling me to be nice and to just disregard Giano as nothing could be done about him from important admins. I was enormously rude to those people. I should not have done that. But if I had tolerated their posts on my page, just think how I would feel now, with everyone tiptoeing around Giano! I would feel sick! I feel much better, now that I stand up for myself then I did in the days when I was trying to be a nice, likable editor. That got me no where. Heck, you blocked me. I think you were the last time I was blocked for real. Haven't been blocked since and don't expect to be. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Um, I am not altogether in agreement with your assessment- I refer to the ArbCom related to Zearaph (sp? close enough!) and the more recent matter involving Sandy Georgia. While I don't get involved I am not unfamiliar with some of the issues regarding your interactions with some editors. Nobodies perfect, and no-one is always the innocent victim of circumstance, but - yes - if I consider you to be the wronged party (as I did with Cyborg Ninja) then I will act in your interests if requested. Not, however, if I didn't. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I hope you would stand up for me as you do for Giano. I don't call people names. I don't make it impossible for someone to post in areas of Wikipedia. I don't have a clique of people who harass others into submission so that an article cannot be improved, to Wikipedia standards. I don't own articles. If you put me in the same category as Giano, then I have some serious thinking to do about whether I should be participating in Wikipedia. If I am any where never that much of a negative influence, then I ought not to be posting anywhere. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Giano is a good example - for he will provide a rationale for why he uses phrases (see the current block discussion) which may appear uncivil. You will see that I am pussyfooting around by using the term "falsehood", whereas Giano will bluntly say "lie" and refer to the matter in hand. He may be mistaken, and he may be excessive, but he is operating within the bounds of WP:NPA. You, of course, take issue with both the implication and the terminology, but you have also been known to speak plainly in what you see are mistruths and misrepresentations. The only difference is in whose perception of truth and mistaken understandings one perceives to be based in a defendable reality. In most issues (but not all) I have tended to side with Giano. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Are the kinds of uncivil comments Giano II regularly makes to people, including me, OK? For example, he calls me a troll and other unflattering names and ridicules me, and I am told to ignore the comments. Now I avoid areas of Wikipedia like FAR because of the stress these remarks cause. It seems to me that the more outrageous an editor is, and I am thinking of another recent case, the more that editor is allowed to call people liars, sock puppets, trolls, idiots etc. It almost seems like it is better to build up a reputation as a discourteous editor, as that way more will be tolerated. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- It can be done, yes, if the situation warrants it - and it is advisable that it is reviewed promptly by third parties if in any doubt. It is something of the reason why Admins need to demonstrate knowledge of the policies, but more particularly the trust of the community in acquiring and continuing to keep the mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK. So blocking without warning is done, I take it, in other contexts. An admin said he should have blocked me without warning for a joking comment made on my own talk page, even though the "victim" acknowledged my comment was a joke at the time it was made. That was a close call for me! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Giano II
Hi. Since you raised the issue of the reasons that I gave for my block, I think on consideration that I should have noted as well that Giano II's conduct violated WP:BATTLE, which provides in pertinent part:
- "Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind."
On the whole, I thought it would have been self-evident to any established user, let alone administrator, that the repeated edits at issue are in tone and substance so entirely at odds with the polite civility that all users are required to display on this project that we cannot countenance them in any forum from any user, no matter what dispute triggered them. If Giano II thinks that Neurolysis is deluded and a liar, I expect him to put such criticism in much more polite terms in an RfA of all places, where the editor at issue is not expected to defend himself with strong language, if at all. Best, Sandstein 20:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- WP:BATTLE? That is pertinent to Giano's tone, I suppose, but was not the logged reason and nor is style to be mistaken for content when judging if a policy violation is made. A personal attack is one which, as I said elsewhere, either contains falsehoods of itself or uses irrelevant truths in a manner to malign an editor or their reputation. This was neither, it was an opinion over a matter of fact that was made forcefully (yet without profanity) with the use of plain speaking. I may use an increased vocabulary than Giano, yet I do not see why my references to the issuing of falsehoods and referring to another contributor as a purveyor of untruths should shield me from accusations of making personal attacks if they are uttered without evidence to their veracity. What is so acceptable in making exactly the same qualified claim by adopting more flowery terminology - apart from the fact the recipient may not understand the depth of feeling of anger/frustration/contempt/whatever because it is couched in such neutral language? That is nonsense, since it is the content and not the commentator (or their style) that is important.
- That latter, indeed, I would comment upon in your response above; I do not care for the implication of "...self-evident to any established user, let alone administrator..." that anyone who does not see matters as you do is not as fit as you to make these judgements. In this matter particularly I have made great efforts to have conducted myself - despite my self declared and otherwise obvious support for Giano's robust manner in representing his opinions - in a respectful and thoughtful manner, ensuring that the other parties are kept informed and are able to have their opinions heard and considered. I recognise your right to voice your opinion, to hold views that are contrary to mine, to act as you see is appropriate and within your understanding of the rules and policies, and to act in accordance with them when I see that I do not have consensus to change or vary them - such as closing the ANI thread as staying with the status quo. I do not have to agree with you to be treated as you would prefer that others treat you, as another valued volunteer working for the benefit of the encylopedia. I should like to be shown the same respect, although I do not require it - acknowledging the right of another contributor to behave as they see fit (within policy, naturally).
- I think we are done here; Giano's block has stuck, and we have explained ourselves at each other at some length. We may yet take some understanding from this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- ^ Dave Anderton (2007-03-17). "As Stocks Plunge, USANA Sues Minkow Over Report". Deseret Morning News.
{{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) - ^ Linda Fantin (2007-03-28). "Supplements suit says USANA duped investors". Salt Lake Tribune.
{{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) See also plaintiff press releases from Milberg Weiss, Brower Piven, and Brodsky & Smith, LLC, March 29, 2007. - ^ Paul Foy (2007-06-21). "Vitamin Marketer Sued by Distributors". AP (hosted by Yahoo! business).