User talk:LessHeard vanU

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

request for clarification

I'd have to say that any post to another editor's talk page the opening sentence of which is "Please leave" is illegitimate on its face. The rest of the post seems to be couched in friendly enough terms, which confuses me but doesn't necessarily mitigate that the first sentence is very far out of line. What's the deal? Herostratus (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I know that Flyer22 will understand, and that is to whom the message is directed, the opening two words are meant sincerely and with her interests at heart. Under the circumstances it is not "far out of line". LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Okey-dokey. Herostratus (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

BLP

Thanks. Good advice, too. I'll do better next time. David in DC (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm innocent of any wrongdoing

What are you talking about? On what basis do you blame the edit on me? I did not edit the archived Reference Desk you showed me. I was talking to a cousin of mine I'm visiting about the incident as part of a conversation we had, and I showed it to him. After that, it was all him on his own will and sympathy. I have erased your warning to me because I read it, because I'm inocent of any wrongdoing here, and because I don't want anyone who comes across my account to get the wrong impression about me. Put the warning you gave to me instead to his computer IP address even though, I have to say, he rarely uses Wikipedia except for finding information. However, thank you for that rewarning anyway as I'll consider that as a reminder for me, but I'm telling you the truth. Willminator (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

request semi protection on Monguor people

Monguor people has been suffering from numerous ip addresses and new single purpose accounts with the purpose of blanking massive sections of the page over the past few days. the anti vandal bots can't keep up with it, since one account deleted something, then another account immediately came on and deleted more, so cluebot only reverted the latest account's edits, I suspect they are all sockpuppets.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for a month, as I see that the WP:SPA's have been blanking content for a few weeks. This gives time to see if there are attempts to create auto confirmed accounts to continue disrupting the article, and to note what occurs when protection lapses. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Shakespearean ban awaits logging

Hello LessHeard. Please see User talk:Smatprt#You are topic banned from the Shakespeare and Shakespeare authorship related articles for 1 year. where you notified Smatprt of the community ban last November. Recently I was looking around to see if Smatprt's ban includes talk pages (see User talk:Smatprt#Topic ban violation. for details). Per the ban language that you entered above, it does include them. To aid in future lookup of the terms, please consider entering your ban at WP:RESTRICT. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. I have now logged the restriction, with the link kindly provided above and also the Arbcom confirmation of the sanction (per WP:Arb/Case/Shakespeare authorship question). Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Block of Willminator

I have reduced the length of the block you placed on Willminator from indefinite to a week from now (11 days from your original block). The user certainly deserves a block, for several different reasons, but I think a limited block is probably sufficient to convey the message, and we can always reblock if I am proved wrong. Please let me know if you disagree. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no issue with a sysop amending a sanction actioned by me; I assume that it is done in the best interests of the project, according to their perception. If Willminator understands that he cannot claim that another person used his account to edit archived discussion as he has previously been warned not to do, and does not make such edits in future, then the encyclopedia will not be disrupted and all is fine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so there was more than one reason for my block after all. What were the other reasons so I can be helped out? Willminator (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The person who noted there may be reasons other than the one I blocked you for is User:JamesBWatson, so this question is best addressed to them on their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I was shown to be innocent of not having my account accessed by another person, so my block was shortened up to 1 week and was told that I was being blocked for "disruptive editting" after all, even though I received the 2 warnings from you. The one week block led to a long conflict on why the block that filled my talk page, which I see you are not aware about. I deleted the contents in my talk page this morning though. I was not aware though that there were other reasons for the block based on JamesBWatson's comment to you above. I understand that the block against me meant well, and was not meant to harm me. Well, the block is over now, so I don't think that there is no use in discussing the reasons of the block anymore because it can't be ammended, so I accept what happened to me whether I agree with it or not. Also, I was told and adviced through my personal email by a user that it would be seen as a rant if I talk on my talk page or with anyone else, and I don't want to create any more tension between me, and administrators and users than there is now. (By the way, if my comments here are seen as a rant, I apologize). I'm learning not to let things that go on in Wikipedia affect me because Wikipedia is a fantasy world, but I live in the real world. Besides, I'm going to take a long break from English Wikipedia starting on Saturday, August 20 because the conflict that happened had created unnecessary tension and stress to me and others, and more enemies and friends. When I see that things have died down and when I get a good rest, I'll come back and hope I can start anew and gain favor in the eyes of you and others, and maybe you guys can do a favor to help me out. Also, I'll be taking a break because I was told by a user through my personal email that I was being watched, and that the watch actually extended to the 2 other wikis I used to been in. I apologize for the tension I've created in Wikipedia and for anything I've done here. I'll let all of you know when I come back, and when and if I come back, I hope we can all become friends and get along. I also want to apologize to you for not having carefully read your final warning to me and for making the wrong assumptions about your warning, because if I would have known that you were referring to the 2 August edits (which I realized you mentioned on the first sentence of your warning and I feel pretty bad and stupid that I missed it), I believe that the block, confusions, misunderstandings, etc. could have been avoided and we all wouldn't gone through sour times. For now, good by and take care. I wish you well. I'm sorry if this post ended up being too long. Willminator (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Can the interaction ban please just be put in place already?

Fully sixty percent of Haymaker's last sixty non-automated article space edits are reverts of mine (with or without intervening changes to the content). Many of these are still in articles he stalked me to and/or where he is edit-warring to repeatedly insert unsourced or poorly sourced information, including BLP violations.

I want to be able to edit articles on subjects that interest me without being stalked and reverted. I want to be able to revert blatant BLP violations by a sock of a banned user without worrying that I'll be hauled before EWN because Haymaker is permanently hovering behind me and looking over my shoulder for stuff he can use to try to get me blocked.

I've already made clear that I think the use of one's account largely to harass another user deserves more than a mutual interaction ban, but implementing said interaction ban is the least that could be done and really needs to be done. Please make this guy give me a break.

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

...And he is now posting information to make it easier to find my real identity off-wiki. Please put this in place. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

...Which was the same information you posted immediately above on my talk page. - Haymaker (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

LessHeard, this is flatly untrue. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

And another frivolous edit-warring report, again for the removal of BLP violations on an extremely high-traffic page. I'm sorry to keep posting about this, but I just want to edit in peace. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you denying that you posted immediately above that your blog was reachable through google?

Tell you what, I tire of the dance we've been doing low these many months. How about for the next 90 days we both agree to walk away from all non-administrative pages we have mutually edited, don't follow each other to any new pages and both agree not to make any terminology changes? - Haymaker (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's reachable through Google is irrelevant. All sorts of libel are reachable through Google, and we don't allow them on Wikipedia. Don't you dare try to justify posting identifying information about me here. If you want to stop harassing me, be my guest. I will not make any more concessions to your sick desire to get me out of your way, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ros please, I work for a living. You said your blog is reachable through google and I mentioned what result it is. And I would have been more than happy to have the conversation in private but you decided to post your response publicly strawmaning it as usual. I would love to disentangle from you but I'm not going to hand over the articles we have edited to your POV. I'm trying to put a reasonable deal on the table that puts neither of us at a disadvantage and has us both editing productively again. So what do you think? - Haymaker (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You named the blog. You deliberately posted identifying information about me on Wikipedia. Outing is not acceptable, ever. Even less so when it forms part of a campaign of harassment that has lasted over nine months. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

But not the address, not your blog and not the post that got you in trouble for canvassing. Save me your fauxrage. - Haymaker (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Compare the IMO reasonable deal I have proposed here. No uninvolved user seems to have had a problem with it so far. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

Works for me, obviously. Hopefully concern about being blocked will finally make these guys leave me alone. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Soooo...planning on making this happen anytime soon? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The interaction ban? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes please. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Be right back... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have advertised for a third sysop to administer this interaction ban. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh - I hadn't realized that (presumably) part of the reason for the delay was that B turned it down. Anyway, good luck... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

User:B has not edited WP since just before Haymaker suggested them as one of the overviewing admins. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I see you're right. That's a shame - zie was a voice of common sense. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Advice

It would be very good of you to look at this, as I have no idea how to respond.--andreasegde (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Jacksonjake

Resolved: indef'd -

Hi, would you have a look at this new users contributions Special:Contributions/Jacksonjake - more of the smae under his logged out IP contributions. This account is clearly not here to improve the project and simply seems to have a grudge against it, as such can he just be indefinitely blocked as a disruptive account that is not here to improve the project? - his first edit says "Jimmy Wales, who I gather started his career in the pornography business"... and its been a series of rants attacking child admins and the project ever since. I am not very good at remembering names but is there that you know a sockmaster with jake in the names? imo - It would be nice to know which previous banned user he is before he is blocked. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive time

Time for 'viff dean' me thinks. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What does "viff" mean? I use dialects, but only where I can explain 'em! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's probably just me, but the youth today seem unable to pronounce t's and f's consistently. It is Twenny-twenny cricket, and I've lost count of the slightly lisped 'vor dean', 'viff dean' etc., that I hear. Often in a raised voice, say in fast food outlets, announcing that your mega-super-mega lard burger is ready. Mind you, I live in a cave in East Yorkshire, so I don't get out much. I love the young though; spit roasted is best. Dear old Spike Milligan once said - "I have the body of an eighteen year old.... I keep it in the fridge".

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

re your edits at 'Sexual intercourse'

See my talk page. You have it wrong. I was restoring the article to the consensus version. JacobTrue (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Responded/apologised there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Your warning to another editor

I noticed that you left a warning (the only entry on an editor's talk page, who has NO info on his user page). This is somewhat late, but is about User:Tenthousand. It is my belief, after looking over that user's edits, which are exclusively about co-founder of 10,000 Maniacs, John Lombardo, that it's likely to either be Lonbardo himself or someone very close to him. The edits also frequently refer to him in the first person, "John" rather than our use of the last name, per the WP:MOS.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That was a long time ago... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

please take the dead people off your front page

it is disrespectful to dead people to be using their names without permission. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You are, of course, able to provide evidence that these people refused permission - including my cousin and mother in law. Begone with you, wastrel! LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

ABBA Gold: Greatest Hits

Hi LessHeard, can you have a look at this, please, and notice that another editor has vandailsed this by "moving" this article to another title twice, where I moved it back twice. This title has been in place since its inception, and there is absolutely no need for it to be moved. Also, I left a message on its "talk page" too. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I will respond on the talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice of 6 month Interaction ban between User:Haymaker and User:Roscelese

Important Notice These restrictions are agreed by the above named editors, and are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

• Roscelese (talk · contribs) and Haymaker (talk · contribs), as the parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia, and editing any article to the effect of undoing or manifestly altering a contribution by the other party - except on the talk pages of the "involved administrators", Arbitration Committee Request/case pages where either (or both) are an involved party, Requests for Comment/User where either or both are a party, or similar pages where their comments are requested. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. The ban is indefinite, but for not less than 6 months - after which either party may request review or both may agree to request the lifting or suspension of the ban.
• A relaxation of the restrictions may be agreed, at a neutral venue such as one of the involved admins talkpages, by the parties in regard to certain topics from time to time but otherwise the above restrictions apply.

Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights), Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights), and TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

A copy of the above restrictions will be placed on the talkpages of both parties and WP:RESTRICT, and notices added to the talkpage of each "involved administrator".

LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC) on behalf of the involved administrators.

Drinking

Half an hour in. So how's it going? Egg Centric 21:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ur mi bes frne... fern... FffffFfff... FREN! Mi ver bes FREN... EVAAAA! Wossyername? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

My name is User:Jimbo Wales. Please give me an indefinite ban because I harbour illicit feelings towards those of the fairer sex who are close to you. Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I am not lying Egg Centric 22:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

loza frenz col Usel... hmmm... Ur mi bes fre...N! Sori bout yer shert... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

MOAR

DRINK MOAR NAOW Egg Centric 22:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Help!

Could you put the expiration date in the right place, please? It's effing with me! Bishonen | talk 22:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC).

Day 1

Ros undid my edit, the paragraph regarding the Bishops. Also, is it kosher for me to continue my participation in this discussion on the NPOV board? - Haymaker (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have given an only warning, since Roscelese has not (yet) reverted a subsequent revert of her edit. The next time she violates the iban, I will block her. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion precedes the ban, so providing the continuing discussion is civil and remains on that page only then it appears fine to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds legit. Thanks for the heads up on the discussion, I will apply that metric to a few other conversations and will return if I have any other questions. - Haymaker (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as there is an ongoing discussion - and involving other people - then it would make sense to let it play out. If one of the "involved admins" gets a notice from R that an old discussion has been restarted or an existing one has taken on a differing aspect then we will have to review it on that basis. As I said, this restriction is a formalisation of a desire to have you two cease involving yourselves in the others editing. Winding up threads is fine - getting round the restriction is not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive718

Hi there.

As you are the administrator dealing with this 'incident' I'd like to ask about the complaint that Jayjg brought to the Admin Notice board. I'm new to this complaints of conduct area of wiki. So am asking how this works. Is that likely to go anywhere? I think Jayjg made some very serious allegations that appear to be based upon deliberate deceit or at best misrepresentation based upon very poor judgement. And the issue there seems to have stagnated. Where do I go with this? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs) 07:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I just want to be able to contribute to Wiki without having to deal with all this repeatedly. Jayjg's behaviour towards me is not a new phenomena . I'm starting to see it as harassment. And now I see his name is all over the admin board with complaints against him. He previously threatened to ban me for repeatedly pointing to what i see as a breach of wiki policy at another article. I asked for mediation there and got no adequate response at all to my issues. [2] And now this. I would like to have this resolved. So can you tell me what courses of action are open to me?

He repeatedly misrepresents me, one time completely reversing his attack (from 'made a distinction up' to 'conflates the two' - see below) does not answer my clear questions to him, and refuses to work towards agreement.

In this particular topic under review, here's a couple of recent examples that I have selected to save you reading all the discussions at the talk page where he misrepresents me and then won't answer:

Under the topic Bratich's explanation of Conspiracy theory he wrote:

I think that's the crux of the dispute here. Both common usage and the literature define a "conspiracy theory" as a special kind of narrative/view of events/world-view, which is distinct from any theory about a conspiracy. However, BruceGrubb and Mystichumwipe have been attempting to conflate the two. Jayjg (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for clarity, I have NOT been attempting to conflate the two. Just the opposite. I have been trying to separate the two out, and make the disinction between them clear in the article, using verifiable sources. Jayjg, you are now writing about "the term in the first sense" and "the second sense" after previously saying such a distinction didn't exist and accusing me of making it up. Yet now you are trying to say that I am trying to conflate the two? Please explain this reversal of opinion and new false accusation?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

. . . . . . . . . . .

Under the same topic he wrote:

Barkun is an academic expert describing conspiracy theories; he is not promoting them, or a subject of them. Please review WP:SECONDARY. Also, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You haven't really addressed my explicit point nor the quote I provided. I have reviewed WP:SECONDARY which is why I was able to provide the quote. And regarding your advice concerning the topic of WP:EQ may I remind:

• Do not make misrepresentations.
• Do not ignore questions.
• Concede a point when you have no response to it.
• Remember The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you. Etc., etc.

If you are prepared to work towards agreement with me, then can we agree this question of primary or secondary source is really a sideshow to the main question of what definition gets precedence in the lead. I am of the view that Barkun as a source (he is the the source for the first two citations) should not have precedence as he is not represenative of the consensus understanding of the term conspiracy theory, (which is where we came in;-). He refers almost exclusibley to the secondary more pejorative usage of the term, and that without this distinction being even alluded to let alone clarified. I would like that distinction to be made clear. But what do you think? Do you agree there are two usages of the term, one a more neutral and the other a more pejorative usage?

In both these example he failed to reply.

My advice is TO LET IT GO. The matter is archived, and there has been no action taken in regard to any claim that you may have acted inappropriately. There is no point now in trying to "set the record straight". It is an unfortunate truth that there will be claims made against you that you will not be able to resolve - it happens to all of us, me included. The best approach is to consign the issue to the past, and to continue in your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. I strongly recommend that this is the course that you take from now on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I hear your advice. But I would still like to know; what are my alternatives? If not for now then for the future.

Y'see I still want to contribute to the article that he has threatened to have me banned over, if I continue to disgree with his judgement. [3]

So I am stuck at an impasse there. I understand he is a full time administrator, so if I do continue, he does have the power to have me banned (not just blocked). Which does seem to explain the harassment: the guy apparently wants to ban me. And is prepared to misrepresent and even lie, possibly trying to piss in my corner enough to make me leave of my own volition.

That is why I am still curious to know what my options are.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the other editors complaint gained no traction at the discussion, it is reasonable for you to continue editing the article within policy. If there is a perceived problem with your editing, then the other party should instigate dispute resolution processes. An editor who is also an admin is not permitted to use their sysop flags where they are involved in such a dispute - admins can and have had their privileges removed for doing so. If an editor claims that you are violating policy, or acting improperly, as regards your editing then commence a dialogue - involving third parties, if necessary - until a consensus is reached. Only if they note previous instances of claimed issues, you may then address them or argue whether they are relevant as you see fit. As I keep emphasising, the best way forward is to not hark back to the past but deal with the matters at hand - presently, that is editing the article(s) you are interested in. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblock of 212.159.45.2

I have just accepted an unblock request at User talk:212.159.45.2. You had blocked, giving as reason "History of adding inappropriate links, and then blanking talkpage", but I can find no sign of such link additions, and there is no reason not to remove talk page warnings once they have been read. I have searched extensively in the editing history, including looking at every one of the last few dozen edits, looking at every edit to the talk page since February, and checking diffs quoted in talk page warnings during that period. I cannot find a single example of addition of anything that could conceivably be viewed as an inappropriate link, though there are some cases of removing links, and numerous cases of changing the format of existing links. Some corrections of link formatting seem to have been misidentified by a bot as additions of links, and the user is of the opinion that such misinterpretations are the basis of the block. While I would normally assume that you had checked the edits personally before blocking, I really cannot find anything that looks as though it could possibly be regarded as addition of inappropriate links, so I wonder if you have made a mistake. If I have missed something then please let me know, preferably with diffs so that I can see where I have gone wrong, and I will consider reblocking. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It is an interesting case since I took the report at AIV and quickly checked the talkpage history and contrib history but only, because of the nature of AIV reports, a couple of the examples provided. My brief review indicated that they were indeed removing, or altering, or adding links and their response to being warned (and not only by 'bot, but also editors) was to blank the page and, substantially, continue what they were doing - drawing further warnings. Even after another review prompted by your unblock and post here, I do not see much in the way of talkpage edits where they may have explained their edits.

Now, after careful review, you indicate that all of the link amendments were appropriate... It would have been useful if the ip had made such comments in response to other editors warnings (obviously, no need for bot reports) rather than removing and quoting WP:BLANKING, or even dropping a note on the other editors talkpage. In the quantity of the similar reports and warnings regarding the accounts editing and absence of such indicators that there was an issue with the comments it was a reasonable judgement on my part to AGF of the reporters claim of vandalism, and to notice that it was a long term "issue", and to enforce the sanction that I did. It did (and does) look very much like the editing pattern of an individual who is unwilling to comply with some WP policy/guideline in a subject area where such unfortunate practices is widespread.

I have no problem with the unblock, per AGF toward both the editor and unblocking admin. If the editor continues to draw warnings over their edits - and responds to them by removing them from the page without comment or other response - then they may find another admin will make a similar mistake. Perhaps a gentle word from you about the desirability of ensuring that any review will quickly be able to determine that the warnings are in error or that the issues have been addressed, and that other editors concerns have been responded to, will stop a repeat of an incorrectly applied block.

Under the circumstances, I do not think that I acted either inappropriately or unduly in arriving at the conclusion I did or in enacting the sanction. I was wrong, but I feel it was an understandable mistake. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU seems to have quite a history of being an aggressive violator of NPOV.Borgmcklorg (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Scary man...

Please please PLEEEEEEEEEASE don't hit me!!!! :( 94.8.193.32 (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, please could you hit him? Egg Centric 20:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah, ducking and walking away seems to have done the trick...LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. I've sent him back under his bridge. Favonian (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look

Hello Mark,

Please have a look at Chris Hansen and the reverts/changes there. The other editor is insisting on keeping the content. There is no citation to back it up and it appears to be WP:OR and misleading. The first time I reverted I thought it was vandalism. I've discussed it with him on his talk page about having a citation and how it the edit is misleading, but he's insisting otherwise. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, the citation he's using there now is the one I added when I made edits and it doesn't support the edit he's made.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And, one more thing. He's got a penchant for vandalizing the George W. Bush page. This is his second go round there. [11]. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As this is a BLP, and is also involving alleged illegal/improper sexual behaviour (and although not on the part of the subject, the subject may be damaged by incorrect reporting), this would be an issue to raise on the BLP Noticeboard - the references need to be cited precisely. The admins and other regulars there are adept at determining what is and is not a BLP violation. If you have diffs for the GWB edits, as that is also a BLP, you may wish to present them there also - if it is straight forward vandalism, then you can give me them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

On further review, they say they are going to stop editing. If they do stop then there is no issue, but if they continue/come back then they may need a tap with the cluestick. I suggest waiting to see if the make any further contentious edits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get the other edit.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't know the motives here. Certainly don't agree with the sentiments. [12][13][14] Malke 2010 (talk) 14:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the sentiments, those edits are uncited juvenilia and may be removed promptly. If they continue/return to making similar posts then let me or some other admin know. However, with luck they will cease editing as promised. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Hope all is well with you. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Kai Wong

Please resurrect pages on Hollywood actor Kai Wong. Relevance to cinemas of Singapore, Hong Kong and China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.11 (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any good reliable sources establishing the notability of this person? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Block

Read your comments, blocking a good-faith contributor because of 'disruption' claimed by a very few (two or three) people who try to present some kind of controlling point of view here, great work, hey.

Point: I don't recognise the block as valid, reasons are easy to explain (or see through observation), but it is in the record. Is there a mechanism for ensuring that such unfair and stupid blocks are not brought up every time the target tries to contribute or do anything on Wikipedia (I am quite certain that was the reason, i.e. intimidation of a reasonable contributor whose contributions were disliked by some of the 'power players' here)?

As you know, and as was probably your objective, if I attempt to continue on Wikipedia and the block is not invalidated, it will be brought up every time any of the 'power players' here decides to object to any activity from me whether or not there is any reason (none so far and none in the record, if you bother to look).

If there is no such process (a process to invalidate your unreasonable block in retrospect), please explain in plain words that that is the case. If there is such a process, what is it? A reasonable and sincere explanation is your duty as an administrator. Reiterating, I can only see the block as the first step in eliminating a contributor who was never unreasonable, made a few good contributions, but was deemed to be inconvenient to a particular clique.Borgmcklorg (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You may appeal the block at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard; it would be best to provide links, etc. It will be reviewed and some comment may be made if it is good or not. If it is found to be bad - and not just a mistake - it is possible that a fresh entry may be made in your block log noting the previous sanction as invalid or inappropriate. Technically, you can also appeal to the Bans Committee of the Arbitration Committee - but they usually only deal with active blocks of long duration. Should you make a post to WP:AN, you should notify me so I may make a response, if I choose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would have taken the arrogant and threatening reply above as genuine, and thank you here for replying in at least a slightly genuine way. Yet you manage to foul all of that with the next message.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewed the circumstances surrounding my blocking you - the "very few" editors trying to stop you adding opinion and conjecture to a BLP were senior editors trying to ensure that WP's policies regarding reliable sources, and undue weight, were adhered to and potential legal consequences of your actions mitigated. You were blocked under the lesser of the violations of the projects rules, that of Wikipedia:Forum in discussing the subject rather than the article, instead than Wikipedia:Biography of living persons as there was a possibility that your assertions might prove to be correct and a reliable source found. You should, if you are really a good faith editor, understand what Wikipedia:Consensus is; if only one person is interpreting policy correctly, then they have consensus regardless of how many people are saying that they prefer the other version. When people cannot understand that and indicate that they are going to do what they think is right and damn the rules, then they get blocked. You were blocked for 31 hours, the same as some ip writing "FUCK" on an article page, because your edits were no more and no less disruptive than that. If you still believe that you were right to use Wikipedia as your personal soapbox from which to give your opinion on a person or an incidedent then I indeed get the block wrong - it should have been longer. Good luck in getting my mild and necessary block reversed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment "you are an idiot or a troll, and likely both" is quite the model for civil discourse, reality of you, as it seems.

Your "mild" block wouldn't normally be considered mild for a single (and not continued) reversion of a biased administrator's propaganda on a talk page, and I am sure you are aware of that. Accusing me of using Wikipedia as a personal soapbox when "senior" (as you put it) Wikipedia administrators were operating with an openly biased agenda to push for a particular result in terms of opinion and more definitely, push a particular point of view on the Wikipedia regarding the case (Strauss-Kahn is automatically inoccent of any claim, accusation, or actual action on his part, according to your gang). New words in the Wikipedia were written to imply innocence on Strauss-Kahn's part after the court dropped the case, if you know anything about the history of the legal profession from the pre-depression years in New York until now, you will know the corruption is immense, [redacted per BLP]. There was no finding of innocence for him, the case was dropped on grounds that wouldn't have washed if not for his ethnicity and former IMF position.

Your words: "the same as some ip writing "FUCK" on an article page"—interesting comparison, but I doubt anyone outside your group of "senior" administrators could read the history and find that it agrees with your claims. However, if you want to restrict the Wikipedia to Giyus people and other idiots, keep up the good work.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Senior, as in experienced and conversant with policy, editors; you need to be able to properly recite your quotes if you hope to be taken seriously. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect a reply, saw your comments about taking a break below. "You need to be able to properly recite your quotes if you hope to be taken seriously" from you, the part of your rant that I quoted has the exact words you used, "the same as some ip writing "FUCK" on an article page" was your idea of something comparable to a challenge to the party-line on the NY v. Strauss-Kahn article. While you are on your Wikibreak, you might read some of the many tomes that may enlighten you about NY justice (state and city, not the same, but connected), Citizen Cohn is one good example (albeit treading too lightly on many points). Maybe you could find it in yourself to admit that your attempted simile was way off-scale.Borgmcklorg (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I've blocked BorgMcLorg indefintely. I'm increasingly of the opinion we coddle people like him too much. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If they appeal it, I would accept a ban from my talkpage as a condition for unblock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't really block him because he was being obnoxious on your talk page, I blocked him because his references to GIYUS and a "central ethnicity" involved in New York corruption exposed his agenda. I'd be against unblocking him at all, but if someone disagrees, I concur that at a minimum a ban from your talk page is reasonable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)You referred to the other editors as administrators, which they are also, rather than contributors to the subject article - it has nothing to do with the flags, and everything to do with you attempting to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to expound your opinion regarding the judiciary of New York and the alleged favouritism allowed to wealthy individuals, exampled by you in the person of Strauss-Khan, who can allegedly buy influence. However, you have not been able to provide a reliable third party source to quote from and, in its absence, your comments leave the project open to accusations of libel. That is all the other editors and I have been doing, stopping you from using Wikipedia in a disruptive and potentially damaging manner. You don't like it, and you have certain opinions regarding it - good for you, and there are plenty of sites willing to accommodate your views; Wikipedia, however, is not one of them.

As for your "demands" that I acknowledge this or admit that... No. You are incapable either of admitting you were using Wikipedia inappropriately or of letting this matter go, and I see no reason why I should accommodate you. Now, either bring forth proper dispute resolution processes or leave this page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC) ps. I have removed your comments in the section below, per WP:USERPAGE. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The time has come to step away

I have not been able to be enthusiastic about editing Wikipedia for a little while now, and think I had best distance myself from the project while I still retain a good regard for its mission and the majority of its editors. I am taking the advice I gave another, proper, content contributing editor just a few weeks ago: I am going to withdraw while there remains the likelihood that this will just be another wikibreak. I am going semiretired as I will continue to use the admin flags in my role of Oversighter, which role I intend to continue. I will also respond to direct requests for help and advice and other requests - I am just going to drastically reduce my watchlist and cease participation on the admin boards and other pages.

As is now expected, I shall provide some thoughts upon the subject of Wikipedia (based on my experience). There is and has never been anything like it before, and in so many ways it is a fantastic and successful project. It stands out as a free and accessible resource, created by volunteer effort and managed, largely, by the common will of its contributors to give freely of their time, skill, and knowledge. Whatever arguments and criticism that has been leveled at it, the Free Online Encyclopedia remains a monument to the vision that created it and the sustained effort of those who build it. I am and will remain proud to have been a very very small part of it.

So, I shall attempt to remove myself now from its clinging embrace while I retain my admiration for the work and those who labour upon it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• - Enjoy yourself LHVU , good to know you are close to hand. Very best wishes to you. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• My completely selfish reaction is that this totally blows. Since my initial days as a fledgling editor I have always found you to be one of the most honest, approachable, respectful, and helpful editors (not to mention admins) at Wikipedia. What you have done for this project can not be overstated; so speaking on behalf of the newbie I used to be, as well as the fledgling admin I am now, thank you most sincerely for all of the direct help provided over the years and the indirect guidance you provided as a role model of sorts. I hope this time away allows for a fresh perspective and one day you will find your way back to this crazy little corner of the internet to help the next crop of fresh-faced and not-yet-jaded editors find their way. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• I second Ponyo's words. I also send best wishes to you and yours offline and on. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 21:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• plus me. "Darn" just doesn't cover it. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think I know how you feel; I come here now more out of a sense of inertia than enjoyment. Here's hoping some time away will recharge your batteries. If so, WP will benefit. If not, WP has already benefited from your time more than we have a right to expect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Help on ruling

I believe the admin "Kuru" is made a very serious mistake here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:LardoBalsamico_reported_by_User:Sillystuff84_.28Result:_page_protected.29 I've been trying to engage on his talk page. Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

He has all but admitted his mistake here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kuru#3RR_or_4RR.3F Sillystuff84 (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Reporter subsequently blocked indefinitely as sock of banned user. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblocking User:Kamran the Great

Could you look into this please, as an editor who has been involved in the blocking? I think the user, having now emailed me with apologies and assurances that he won't be disruptive again, should now be unblocked. I tried contacting BWilkins, another admin, by email some months ago but with no success. If you like I could email you the email exchange between User:Kamran the Great and myself, if that would be of any help. Cheers, Ericoides (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

If the individual who edited as Kamran the Great were to email me, per the link on this page, with an undertaking not to disrupt Wikipedia in the future then I will be willing to unblock. I place indefinite blocks on the basis that they can be lifted at the first instance that they are no longer needed, so this will not be a problem. As I am sure Kamran the Great realises, any further instances of inappropriate editing will likely incur another indefinite block - with less chance of it being reversed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have emailed him with a link to this page so you will probably be hearing from him soon. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You may be more brutal looking than I...

...but I aint scared. Let's 'av it! 94.8.150.12 (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. So is it to be Brick Lane, London, or Camberley, Surrey? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Upon checking, my BT Broadband ip address is also in London - the same city as your Sky Broadband ip address. No sweat. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, if truth be told, I am a little scared. Is it too late to back down or must I face your brutality? 94.8.150.12 (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe you - you are obviously trolling - and anyway I am 300 miles away from where my ip places me, and you also could be anywhere in the UK. The likelihood of us "meeting" is as small as the likelihood of this chat being of any consequence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on User:Syjytg at ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding User:Syjytg's recent actions. The thread is User:Syjytg's return to Disruptive Editing. Thank you. —Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 16:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Link of the day

Where citations come from. Bishonen | talk 00:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC).

Well, yes, of course; how else would I have managed to credit myself as the discoverer of the sub surface oceans of Europa? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Best of luck, but I am mostly inactive these days. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you would be so kind as to look at this

I realize you're semi-retired, but would you take a look at the dispute here in light of the arbitration decision? I don't want to be wasting any more time repeating the last two years. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have commented at Smatprt's talkpage, making clear my opinion that a resumption of the behaviours that lead to a topic ban would be just reason to review the case for a resumption of the sanction. As far as ArbEnforcement, I would prefer that such matters be dealt with by a(n even) more uninvolved sysop than I. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

topic area participation review

Per User talk:Smatprt#A comment from a largely inactive interested party, I'd like you to review the involvement of Smatprt in the whole Shakespeare authorship question topic area. See this revert and the edits thereabouts. And get that blue-thing gone. Cheers, Alarbus (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens w/ GPS

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays..--Buster Seven Talk 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Peace is that brief interlude between unfastening your seatbelt and preparing to enjoy the 4 hour flight, and suddenly being convinced that you had not turned off the water whilst remembering that you had not got around to fixing the leaking tap connection... Compliments of the Season. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

No, no, Little Less

	No, no, Little Less. Peace is...
	Peace is that sunshiny hour or so when you have stopped frantically worrying whether you're attractive, and have not yet started frantically worrying whether you're still attractive. (Someways off Kingsley Amis' character Patrick Standish.) Naked Santa, perhaps having just attained that peak of serenity, brings you greetings of the season. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Er... I accept this gift in the manner that it was intended, and damn the consequences! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). CTJF83 22:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have gone to said page, and added nothing of consequence - being precisely the point. I hope you enjoyed the essay... you did read it, didn't you!?. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Mont Blanc

Hello LessHeard, Just wondering whether you might like to pop over to the Mont Blanc talk page and establish whether consensus has been reached on this point] and, if it has, for you to make some sort of ruling. The debate seems to have fizzled out so now might be a good time. Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"I very rarely give out candy. Certainly not to strangers."

Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

lol best line ever --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 08:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I remember writing it... but not where. I suspect it is not on WM. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a rather brilliant exchange here that I also noticed (I saw it when a subsequent sock of that user was blocked a couple of days ago). Johnuniq (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I am slightly disappointed to find that Selina had not found it on an off wiki site, under one of my other cyber identities, and was noting it here as a form of subtle attempt at discomforting me - as such practices are apparently endemic with those associated with Wikipedia Review... I am much less surprised to be advised that Cataconia has been socking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)