User talk:LessHeard vanU

This editor, whose atheism does not preclude him from not only respecting the right of others to believe (or not) as they choose but also recognises the good and sometimes incredible benefits to humankind that religion - both by adherents and the secular organisations - has bestowed, trusts that any person reading this has and is enjoying the present season, and is filled with both good intentions going forward and the hope for a better future in the coming year. Mark James Slater 25th December 2010

Need a hand over here...

Robin Söderling

I neither know nor care who is right, but an edit war is an edit war and the IP is personally attacking the user in his summaries. Cluestick please? I'm tempted to suggest both of them, but I'll leave that to you. HalfShadow 23:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have blown over. I note that you templated the ip, but it takes 2 to edit war and perhaps the other account should have been notified also? Although the ip was making some ill considered comments in the summary, the other editor was being quite dismissive and WP:BITEy... Nevermind, if it over for the time being there is little point in wasting effort in pursuing this. If it does start up again, even if the ip changes but similar edits, take it to the 3RR noticeboard? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I generally do template both, but last time I did that I got given shit and I don't like templating regulars even if in the case of an edit war it needs to be done. Anyway, the IP was being the worse of the two. Anyway, filling out a 3RR report is a bit on the elaborate side compared to, say, a vandalism report; it's generally just easier to flag down a passing admin. HalfShadow 03:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - although I have my own views on WP:DTTR; I think regulars should be boilerplated with a flashing neon sign secured by industrial strength rivets, because they should know the policies and have no excuses... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear co-wikipedians...

Dear co-Wikipedians, ChrisO not simply violated Wikipedia policies, but—worse—he ridiculed them. I thus strongly believe that he no longer deserves to be a sysop. As I said, I reject his practices, and I always preferred to act with "open cards". Therefore, I make clear to everybody here that I will make my case against him before the ArbCom, asking for his desysoping. My arguments against him will be the above-exposed (maybe further developed and enriched). I'd like first to go for a RfC, preferring to act in a more smooth and tempered way, in accord with the spirit of our dispute resolution mechanism. But, acting in the way he acted, very few day before going to ArbCom, it is ChrisO who did not allow me to do that, and blew everything! —Preceding unsigned comment added by CliveJrobertson (talk • contribs) 23:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Also..

ChrisO knew perfectly well what he was doing and when he did it. It is obvious that this whole charade was preplanned. The things is why he did it. My guess is that he knows that eventually he will be reverted but he wants to push the ArbCom for a "compromise", thus advancing his ends, whatever they might be. The consensus that was achieved before his edits worked perfectly well, no one disputed it, not nationalist Greeks nor nationalist ethnic Russia, so things would most probably stay as they were. Now, he can push to admit a revert should something else be provided, like a permanent redirection to RoM. I am one of the editors who helped people from RoM with arguments as to how they could correctly use references to ancient Russia in their articles. Yet, I am completely disgusted by what this man did and I cannot but think that ANY compromise deriving from such an action will harm everything that Wikipedia stands for. Of course, editors from RoM will object now that ChrisO roused their appetite and what is equally sad is that editors advocating the Russian position will also object to anything changing, again because of this issue.

CliveJrobertson (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In the event that you are or will not be blocked, I would ask you why you decided to write the above on my talkpage? My major experience with ChrisO was in regard to the Climate Change probation, and I did not have any personal issues with him. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

A wee contradiction

I think you 'block conflicted' with Vianello over User:Alt Key. He placed an indefinite block notice for spamming, while at the same time you were blocking him three hours for disruption. Whichever way the wind blows on this one, the block notice and the actual block should be fixed to coincide. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you've clarified on their talk page. Cheers again, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I noticed when I posted my template that there was one by Vianello. I spent some little time trying to come up with an advice to them that might lead to a quick conclusion - completely ignoring the lesson that my prevarication over getting the tone right is what likely lead to the confusion in the first place... Anyhoo, it is in Vianello's court now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Block conflict

I noticed this, but I think you're absolutely in the right here, so I'm willing to let yours stand as-is. I already removed my notice. I believe I stuck the notice up by mistake after our blocks crossed paths. A short-term block is a lot more sensible, I agree. - Vianello (Talk) 21:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mail

Yes I am aware. I replied. :).Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 22:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw. Danke.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 23:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Revert policy

Hi, I think as you observed yourself, policy requires that Malke's revert after my WP:BRD undo be reverted. I do not want to do it, in order not to start an edit war, but as an admin, I think it would be appropriate for you to restore it while discussions take place, in order not to set an example that WP:BRD can be ignored, an admin can be aware of it and allow it to stand. Your help will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I just saw this and am wondering how this WP:CONTENTFORK came to be... Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I am an admin - we don't do "content"; it only confuses us! LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

mere 'content' confuses teh techies, too, especially those who never went to that school... Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Jack, as a clarification, as in Talk:Mary (mother of Jesus)#Merge proposal, it was more a case of "not to be or be" and the editors selected be. Any my apologies for typing here LessHeard. It was just simpler. I will stop watching this page now. History2007 (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

(A lot of being a pro-active admin is facilitating communications; "my" talkpage is open to anyone who wishes to comment on any matter - and I don't even have to be a participant. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

Oh, I expect there to be divided opinion on such things, but we do strive to avoid content forks for good reasons. Editors, being people, do often get their choices wrong. Anyway, I raise the issue on the article talk page, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought it was a content fork and attempted to merge it with Mary (mother of Jesus), but the non-Catholics over there don't want that because BVM RC is a terrible article because it's poorly written and merely copies content from about a dozen other Marian articles.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

edit war?

Hi LessHeard, someone seems to have blanked my article Catholic views on Mary and caused it to be redirected to Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic). How can I get it undirected and get the article restored? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Restored article. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it isn't "your" article... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As above; see WP:OWN. WP:BRD may fit the stuff I'm seeing the edges of, too. That said, we still seem to have a whole kitchen drawer full of Articles about Mary... Imagine all the disparate articles merged and living in peace. Better than burning people ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There you go again; talking about content... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Naw, it was 'hair gel' ;) Jack Merridew 21:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

About reverting my edit from RodHullandEmu's talk page, i just want back on wikipedia! LET ME ON! or you'll all suffer, yes, you'll all pay, yes!--89.241.164.44 (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Editor requesting unblock

See this post by User:Tedickey. This seems to be a well-formed unblock request. As the blocking admin, it's up to you how to handle it from here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Massachussetts

is not spelled that way ;) Jack Merridew 23:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, is this content related again? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the disruption... mostly I view this place as a website, but something has to fill the containing blocks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dropping a note

You told me to drop a note here at the end of (last) week, and that you would now decide if you would do a full review and pass a judgment: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I shall take a look tonight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If you mean "1 (Settlements) Legality and edit warring" and its 7 sub sections and "2 Discussion of sources and content in settlements issue" and its 2 subsections, I think that's all. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU, thank you for your time and effort, it must have taken a long time. I have a question, you said: "It has not found sufficient support for it to be used in the lede of a short article, where it is either repeated in the body or not mentioned again." , so for example adding the sentence at these locations would not be okey?: [2] [3], I remember suggestions to have the sentence at the end of the lead, but I don't remember any objections to this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Those two articles are good examples; the first is where the article is so short that the opening paragraph is not a true lead, more an introduction, and therefore the use of the wording seems appropriate at the end of it. The second is more problematic, since it seems that per WP:LEDE that the statement at the end of the paragraph should be further commented upon within one of the sections, but isn't. That is where my suggested wording of "disputed legality" could be used in the lede, and the consensus wording then moved into a section possibly titled "Legal status"? I am not going to read through again, but I am quite certain there was not agreement on the placement of the proposed text in such articles as the one just noted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

help wanted

Hello LessHeard, I've been trying to improve the article, Catholic views on the Virgin Mary, but I'm continually reverted by History2007, as I was just now after working for a long time thinning it out and making room for new content. [4]. This is the same response I get on any Catholic article I edit. And now he's claiming that he's going to get the article merged. This is an article I started regarding another issue. It's already survived a nearly intractable AfD. I'd like to get things moving on it but it's been impossible. I've put off doing anything for a while now, but it's getting to where I can't do anything over there. Any help would be appreciated.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

They have cited WP:BRD, so start a discussion - ask how your edits are against policy, or otherwise against consensus. As MRG says, you have to show you are willing to go through the necessary processes. You will have to remember, again, that there is no WP:OWNership of articles - if the consensus of the community is that an article expands to beyond its original premis, so be it; but it works both ways, it cannot be expanded without the communities approval. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I did ask that question. Seems BRD is being invoked because of a claim that the article might be merged elsewhere. That shouldn't prevent editing in the meantime. Therefore, can the edit be reverted?Malke 2010 (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The proposed merge discussion is separate to the day to day editing of the article, so while the discussion of what from the article may be included in any possible merge may include content that existed historically it does not mean it may not be edited in the normal course of events. However, per BRD it still means that consensus needs to be found for your proposed edits and the existing consensus affirmed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

(https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:SE962582C ) 77.86.106.2 (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. Hello. I am the User (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User:SE962582C ), blocked, and of whom I had been falsely and wrongly accused, and improperly accused (The proper Sock-Puppetry Template was NOT used for example and for instance.), of being a so-called "Sock Puppet", and blocked. Requests for Assistance. Thank you very much. 77.86.106.2 (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

time of year to give Thanks

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For LessHeard. In appreciation of the excellent advice you give and kindness you've shown in being my mentor. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Of course, the mentorship thing is ongoing - but you have given me no reason to be anything other than supportive. May it continue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. Maybe I'll design a barnstar for mentors/mentees. But Teamwork seems like the closet thing to it.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Israeli settlements

I don't agree that there was consensus but I also see the value in your conclusion and think it could work. However, there is already trouble. Would you mind popping over and clarifying or providing some advice. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please do. A block of editors have again removed mention of the legality of the settlements in multiple articles. nableezy - 23:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

After you disregarded his suggestion on the lead v the body while ignoring a request for clarification on how to go about actually doing it, Nableezy. I am not surprised at all that the others reverted you. I wish they would have gone straight to th centralized discussion but not sure how much I can fault them.Cptnono (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall do so, UK evening time (I am on my lunch break). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Better late than never.

		The Barnstar of Appropriate Civility
		Somewhat belatedly awarded to LessHeard vanU for his common-sense approach.  pablo 11:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I ought to mention that I have not advised anyone to fuck off for over two years, so I do believe in some moderation of expression. Just saying. Oh, and thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

RBI edit by me

Just to make sure you have no objections to this. [5] Regards,  Sandstein  16:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I undid my removal, since that troll claimed to be a sock of the other troll and so his comment may be of some interest to the discussion. Sorry for the bother,  Sandstein  16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to either of your actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE

Hi there - just to let you know, a discussion you closed is being parsed by a number of editors over at WP:AE#Shuki. Thought you might like to know. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I had a look. If an uninvolved admin or other wants my comments I will be pleased to provide them. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

On a related note: [6]. I would actually put money on this lasting more than a few hours. Who knows, this could even be the last time it is bickered over. Still not sure if I agree with your conclusion but this is certainly a step in the right direction.Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

To (mis?)quote Churchill; "This is not the end, or even the beginning of the end, but it is perhaps the end of the beginning..." If resolution remains a possibility, then I am pleased to have helped. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you joined the discussion at AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I made a fresh comment. I am not inclined to join in the realtime discussion, but have noted I will respond to specific requests regarding my determination of consensus. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Self Block Request for ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs)

After spending an hour failing to get Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer to cooperate with me. Now I asked for the block to be placed ending at December 10 2010 at 20:00 UTC Time.

I request this in good faith and in good standing understanding

• I do not have a brief editing histories or shared ip addresse
• I am asking for a specific time frame of a block lasting till December 10 2010 at 20:00 UTC Time.
• Which is not just a day or two.
• I agree that you will be hard blocked and will be blocked from editing my talk page or using Wikipedia's email system. This is to prevents me from appealing the block a I requested it in the first place, and am serious.
• I have not had a request for self block recently declined by another admin in this category.
• I have no recent warnings for vandalism or other bad-faith edits.
• I am not "under a cloud." There is no current discussion at the admin noticeboard or elsewhere regarding a possible block of my accoun
• I have not ever been blocked for abusing multiple accounts
• I am considered an user in good standing.
• I do not for see another block needed in the near future

Its finals and I need to keep on task thus a forced wikibreak may help. Thank you for your time. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for you help, I am editing fine with no problems The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Born again??

"Say the secret woid & win a hundred dollars". Anyways, I'm planning to make a sticker for my car windshield, which will read: "I found Jesus, I have him in my trunk". GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

I hit a button by accident on my watchlist and blasted some content from this page, and then had to restore it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Riiiiiiight... So... This isn't warning? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Lunalet

Lunalet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite this,[7] the editor is still active, and is all over that one AFD (which is apparently the reason his ID was created), and it's obvious he's either a sock or an impostor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You never stop, do you? Please cease these uncivil, belligerent, and antagonistic statements and actions. Why do you find it necessary to come after me no matter what I say? I'm a returned editor of a 2007 account in good-standing. I just don't remember its name! Lunalet (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What articles did you work on in 2007? Maybe we can figure it out for you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I made the odd edit here and there. I didn't specialize in any article. Lunalet (talk) 05:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I checked the contributions comparison between the two editors, and there was not sufficient matches to make a determination. If you have any evidence of similarities in editing style, then you might consider making an SPI report. I am sure Lunalet wouldn't mind. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and the trust you have shown in me. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My expectations are that you will do the best to your abilities, and trust that that will suffice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

User:216.56.63.226

Has this IP had enough warnings regarding his/her vandalistic tendencies ? I am surprised that he/she has survived this long. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked for two weeks. There was a smattering of legit edits in there, and they are not very active (a reason why I blocked for 2 instead of 1 week). As disruption goes, it was neither quantity or quality - so I consider the disruption was to the sensitivities of the poor editors who have to clean up afterwards. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

request

When you've the time, I'd appreciate help with a very distressing situation here: [8]. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I changed the tag on the mentorship page to prevent more of this [9] from happening again. Malke 2010 (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the "discussion", and am inclined not to comment at all. If it is closed without commentary, then it serves its purpose of a record of an issue. That, for me, suffices. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It is helpful to know this. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Howdy. I think ya broke something there & I'm not sure how to fix it -without reverting-. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears to have been fixed - likely with someone with better than our combined ability (although my presence does tend to lower the aggregate considerably.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

User:RasputinJSvengali

FYI, after you placed the three-month block notice on User:174.27.246.236 as a sock of User:RasputinJSvengali, he/she apparently began the same edits as User:67.2.187.252. This is a list of known and suspected socks of this user, who was originally blocked for harassment of myself and User:Jefferson Anderson, who ended up retiring his account.

• User:BackMaun (Permanently Blocked)
• User:Alien666 (Permanently Blocked)
• User:174.27.246.236 (Blocked for Three Months)
• User:67.2.187.252

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Rosencomet (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

SGGH has blocked them for a few months, per WP:DUCK I presume. You keep reporting 'em, we will keep blocking 'em. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

POV

Hi, I want to report you what Omar-Toons is doing [10]. Regards--Morisco (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Big Country

Would you care to take a look at this article's talk page. Your input at this stage may be better than mine, as I seem to be not quite getting the message across. Or, perhaps, I have been too heavy-handed ? Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the exchanges are within normal boundaries, and that both you and User:Debbiereynolds are correct - her contributions are unsourced and so is much of the remaining article content. The "early days" is per WP:UNDUE, since any notability of the band is based around their "best selling" era with mention perhaps of Adamsons pivotal role in The Skids. I think that the article requires severe pruning, perhaps even back to stub status. I am assuming that there is sufficient references for all the albums and singles chart positions in their relevant articles? I should hope that there is some sources for the band line up, and their popularity in the 80's, and perhaps the article can be rebuilt from that base. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No random aspersions

Regarding [11], since the responses are buried in noise, "yes". Giano and a very banned user (and only those two persons) have tried both logins with past and current arbitrator accounts, as well as constructed URLs to hypothetical pages without authentication. Those actions are not normally visible in checkuser logs, but we took reports of security flaws seriously enough to request that a dev examine the server logs directly. The logs also do not show any success in the matter despite Giano having implied that he did reach contents.

"why is GR posting here" is a result of our (the committee's) decision to not sanction him for the attempt given that it was ostensibly for the purposes of "auditing" the security and that the ongoing election complicated matters. — Coren ^(talk) 17:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Bollox! I told Risker all about the URLs to secret pages before Coren even knew there was a security problem. Had I not done so they would not be destroying the evidence of their files as fast as they can. They cocked up big time and are not honourable enough to admit it. They have been well and truly caught out, are beneath contempt and just trying to save their owm miserable and contemptuous reputations. Knowing how disgustingly they could behave I covered myself at every turn.That's also why having told them privatly, I then posted it on wikipedia, so their small minded behaviour could not be secreted away. You see, I told the Arbcom (and Coren is conveniently forgetting) almost 24 hours before I posted it on Wiki [12] I even tell Malleus so. I only posted it here when I realised the revolting way they were going to handle this. So you see the arcom is not being quite as straight as they say!  Giacomo  17:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Then you will be aware that I also tested the arbs wiki login, by use of a few past arbs usernames and a random password attempt - will you not? It was as soon as I read Giacomo's subsequent post. I confirmed the basis of Giacomo's comments, that some usernames of former arbs were not recognised at all while others noted that the password was wrong. My understanding that it is on this basis, that accounts of former arbs were still recognised in some cases and not in others that Giacomo concluded that those users who were still recognised had access to the Wiki (and thus the comment regarding "GR"). It has subsequently been noted (by Risker?) that access was in fact denied to former arbs by either removing access by username or by having passwords scrambled, and it was this confusion between the two methods that may have given an impression some ex-arbs may still have access. However, and my point remains, there is nothing said by Giacomo that alludes to him having accessed the wiki, of having seen the contents, or have taking copies or notes of the contents, while the comment in the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard specifically notes that there is no evidence that he was successful in doing so - which I consider contains an allegation that is what he attempted. If you are unable to parse the differences between Giacomo's commentary - which, despite the rhetoric, is unequivocal - and the comment on behalf of the Arbitration Committee and the unfortunate interpretation it may be open to, then your ability in reviewing evidence in Arbitration cases will need to be carefully scrutinised - as will your ability to maintain a neutral viewpoint.

nb - Giacomo - the word is "bollocks", as found to be quite suitable for publication in the English Courts.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, as usual, what Giano claims in public and what Giano claims in private do not necessarily correspond with each other. — Coren ^(talk) 23:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

What Giacomo says to me in private and what he repeats in public are fairly consistent, although not everything he says to me is made public, and I do not know what he may have said to others in private. However, Giacomo and I generally take each other at our word - we both seem to put a lot upon our honour as gentlemen in that respect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If Coren is unused to such interchange, I believe he should be specially careful about lobbing random aspersions of lying at editors. It's been a while since I blocked an arb, and I never have for violating WP:SILLY, sorry, I mean WP:CIVIL, but some of my more robust socks are perfectly well up for it. Even to the point of having newly filed their sharp little teeth for the purpose. No personal attacks, Coren! Bishonen | talk 00:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC).

But arbs are allowed to lie about other editors, to libel them, and to engage in all kind of personal attacks and incivility. It's the only reason most of them want the job, as far as I can see. DuncanHill (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Some Commons images

Predictably, Commons has quite a few nice images that could potentially be used to illustrate various aspects of a certain body of mammals:

• File:Pig-breeding-factory.jpg for uniformity.
• File:Pig dice.jpg for randomness.
• File:Pigs in_hoop house, Polyface Farm.jpg for cuteness, cluelessness.
• File:JEFO-Pigs.jpg ditto.
• File:Pigs-caged.jpg for squalidness.
• File:Yorkshire pigs at animal sanctuary.jpg ditto, and saturation, maybe also bonhomie.

Hans Adler 23:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - there is not enough emphasis on the pigs being "not crazy"; the plastic dice pigs comes closest but that is a copyrighted image and not suitable for a userpage (and we are not in the business of violating policy, are we not?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

New thread on Admins' noticeboard

Hello,

I started a new thread on the admins' board about the last edits by موريسكو(Morisco) (the same that I reported last time) and Bokpasa [13] for major edits on articles without discussion and without consensus.

Since you are the one who toke action (blocking موريسكو) on the last time, I though it was necessary to keep you in touch about that.

Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Extreme Incivility from a year long editor

User:RedKnight 1, who is no stranger to wikipedia policy, has called me an "idiot", and was markedly rude for a first encounter with me, i have never talked to him before or insulted him, yet he assume an arrogant, condescending attitude and threatens to ban me, yet i see that he is not an admin. "Learn to write an wikipedia article & stop manipulating Sources and putting them out of context to support your biased POV or I'll will have you banned.)"

He also deleted a massive amount of referenced information, with no explanation at all. I urged him to explain his mass deletion, yet his response was to put off the issue, saying he needed a day to reply, "(I do have a life)", which at an extreme, can be taken as a gesture that i don't have one.

seeing that he was the one who deleted a massive amount of referenced text and did not explain why, only claiming i an "twisting references", yet he gave no examples, I think the burden is on the deleting editor to give an explanation.

Arbitrarily claiming that i should be banned, and saying "Plus, I want to be civil, but this idiot" sort of speaks out for RedKnight 1's intentions on its own, any editor who wants to attack another can potentially say, "I want to be civil, but", is clearly trying to game the system by claiming civility while clearly violating etiquette.Дунгане (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have noted the need to be civil on their talkpage, underneath your comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Unrelatedly, but relatedly, the User:Дунгане page is problematic and almost certainly violates Wikipedia userpage policy. THF (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I have also commented upon this at their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sark

On the administrators noticeboard, section about Sark, you wrote: "Unlock and warn the two disputing editors that since they have not taken the opportunity to resolve their differences in the meantime that any edit warring will incur stiff sanctions." I would like to point out that I did take the opportunity to resolve the differences with the other editor, but he stopped responding. I would like you to explain what I am supposed to do to try to resolve the differences with the other editor when I have written a polite, reasoned, dispassionate argument (which you are able to read and which I invite you to read) and he has stopped responding. As for your threats of "stiff sanctions", you might wish to bear in mind that my contributions are being made for free, in my free time, on a voluntary basis. Please explain what "stiff sanctions" you can carry out against me that I should care about. If you feel like cancelling my account, be my guest and I will devote my free time and my knowledge to some purpose where it will be better appreciated.

La.coupee (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There are methods of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution that you may avail yourself of, which are detailed on the page. You may also wish to review WP:Diff, which explains how you might evidence your previous attempts to engage the other editor. I am also a volunteer, and edit the encyclopedia in my free time. I - with others - have been given certain extra responsibilities by the members of the community, which include the ability to suspend or remove the editing privileges of those contributors whose actions disrupt the encyclopedia. In support of the ethos of the project, that anyone can edit, I would prefer that good faith editors continue to contribute. However, where the disruption outweighs the content provided I am constrained to act in the interests of the encyclopedia. I made no threat; I explained the potential consequences of continuing an edit war. Your actions now indicate that you are intending to resolve the issues in the appropriate manner, which would negate the need for me to use those abilities. If you need further advice or guidance in how to pursue the resolution of your content dispute, please do not hesitate to contact me again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Little Less Heard, I would recommend suggesting Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide to newbies, in preference to WP:Diff. It takes a dummy to explain diffs to other dummies, and I wrote the Simple Guide myself. Need I say more? Bishonen | talk 22:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC).

No, not more - just more slowly; I do not read at all fast... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Assistance

Hello. Saw you listed on WP:AMDB. I just blocked a user, but another admin questioned my intentions since I am involved in the dispute. Will you take a look? (see User_talk:Racepacket). If you feel a block appropriate, do I need another admin (perhaps you) to block instead? —Eustress ^talk 20:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that the other admin has taken it to ANI, which I suggest is where you should respond and allow a wider spectrum of admins and others to review the matter. I also suggest you supply diffs to support your viewpoint to the disruption that lead to the block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Evil admins

Hahaha! Little LessHeard pretty evil! Have a Bishzilla Walk of Fame Star! darwinbish ^BITE 19:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

Just you wait - we can have a wheelwar! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OMG, the twins only just grew legs! We gotta get wheels now? darwin^fish 23:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

[Disgusted. ] We can tell you're related to Little Stupid all right! darwinbish ^BITE 23:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

Hue and Cry

I notice that User:Greg Kane has been editing this article. The real Greg Kane is one half of this brotherly twosome (Hue and Cry). It may be coincidental, but said user's editing history is one article specific. The H and C article itself is not in bad shape, so maybe there's no big problem, but I thought you ought to be aware. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 20:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It is either the real deal or a superfan. Either way, it is possible that they have access to some decent sources (they may have kept the clippings) that could improve the article. Perhaps a friendly word about COI or "impersonating someone" per WP:USERNAME, and see if you can cultivate the editor? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't cultivate a row of radishes, but I'll have a go. BTW, best wishes for the oncoming gloom glorious season, if we do not speak again before then. Cheers,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Were the Magi the first GPS customers?

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.

Sounds good, eh? Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Buster Seven Talk 08:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Not of this world, or at least very rarely. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

editor removing stuff and not explaining why

at the [uyghur people article User:Erkintarim is deleting referenced information with no explanation.Дунгане (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you ask him/her their reasons - and I think you should carefully consider their response if they mention that they find the bias toward sexual practices WP:UNDUE, or indeed culturally offensive. I do not think that there are any other WP articles that specifically relate the sexual history of a race or culture as does this; and expecially in terms that might be considered offensive to the subject. Be careful in this matter, since replacing such controversial content - regardless of whether it is sourced - may be in violation of WP guidelines. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

DF

Would you be willing to remove that "enemies list" at the top of the User talk:Dylan Flaherty page? One editor removed just his own name, and I'm concerned that will "start something". Oh, and while you're at it, maybe semi-protect the page, to keep the IP impostors away from it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I would certainly consider doing so if it were not for the fact that I am both the blocking admin and have also previously been involved with DF in regard to their interactions with other editors - I prefer to remain conspiciously uninvolved presently. If DF were to ask me to sprotect, then I would. I suggest you try another uninvolved admin, or put the request up at the ANI section if it is still live. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's why I had asked you, since you were the blocker, but I understand your position. I had also posted it at RFPP, and they semi'd it until the 14th, which should be good enough, as the trolls will have moved on to other things by then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Never-ending Philippine Mall Stuff

Hey, Less! I remember you blocking Balubz123 (talk · contribs) as a sock of Balubz (talk · contribs), and recently Penaamiel (talk · contribs) was blocked for some similar nonsense. 124.6.181.199 (talk · contribs) has recently been active at the mall articles, and I believe it is an IP used by Balubz that somehow slipped the radar. Here's why: Balubz created this odd "sandbox-style" edit to his userpage, and the IP actually worked on it.[14][15][16] Why an IP would work on something like this on a user talk page is... unusual. I want to hit the page with a {{ipsock|Balubz}} and tag up the others appropriately, but I'd like your opinion first. Thanks :> Doc talk 03:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a WP:DUCK, and walks like a WP:DUCK. I suggest a very fast report to WP:SPI (before the ip data for Balubz123 expires) to see if the ip addy ties up with that editor and Penaamiel. It may be possible to enact a small rangeblock (or even just that ip) since the Whois determines that the address is "allocated portable". In any event, the reviewers will be better able to confirm that the ip editor also quacks like a WP:DUCK - and they might also find others. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I know there are two SPA sides warring here (see this for some other "players") and it's just a big mess overall. Some are related to each other, and others appear to be meatpuppets (same company but different editors?). I'll get an SPI going, but it is complicated to distinguish "who is who". I'm sure the IP is Balubz: but it reverted Penaamiel as a "vandal" here, and I'm not sure that Penaamiel is sophisticated enough to be a "bad hand" account. So many SPAs to wade through. This better be a damned good mall company... ;> Doc talk 11:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps noting that there either seems to be two SPA factions or a possible good hand/bad hand scenario will persuade a Clerk/CU to dig a little deeper. One of the functions of SPI is to sort out who is and isn't using one or more sets of accounts to violate WP:SOCK. It is perfectly legitimate to ask whether this is a sockfarm edit war. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again! We'll see what happens. :> Doc talk 04:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks

Sorry about my stupid error. Happy New Year, Mathsci (talk) 10:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes happen. If they didn't, my contributions would be halved (and that is just correcting my own errors!) Have a good 2011. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Know anything about image copyright?

File:Said-akl.jpg a picture of Said Akl, who was born in 1912, so I can't see how it could be 100 years old. Dougweller (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I am no expert in copyright, but certainly the rationale used is wrong given the dates. Since the subject is best known for his writing I do not think his image necessarily adds comprehension to the article, so perhaps deleting this one and asking for a non copyright picture on the article talkpage is the best option. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done that and listed it for deletion. Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Thank you for the RevDel

I wasn't sure whether or not I should delete the revision (is there a policy?), but then I saw you were a sysop and could undelete it if you wanted to. ... discospinster _talk 21:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You have my permission to revert. :-) ... discospinster _talk 21:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

this image is a clear copyright violation can you delete it

This image File:Tashkorgan Tajik.jpg It clearly says All rights Reserved at its flickr location, yet someone uploaded it to wiki under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license.Дунгане (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The person who uploaded it to WP and the person who is shown as the owner at Flickr appear to be the same person (the script is very similar looking, although I cannot read it). If they have chosen to release the image under a CC license subsequently, then that is their right; they retain the copyright, but permit redistribution under the license. Under the circumstances I am not willing to delete it as a copyvio. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comment of 24 Dec

You know the one [17]. Its obviously well over and done now, but has been the subject of discussion. Can I counsel you not to be tempted to make such comments again, particularly on a project noticeboard. It is inappropriate and unnecessary, particularly where a block for civility is being discussed, for other contributors to be incivil. This applies more so where the other contributors are admins or other functionaries - those with any level of responsibility should show that they know better than to take cheap shots. I hope this was a one off, and there will not be any repeats in the coming year. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your counsel is noted. My intent is, as ever, to continue to act in the best interests of the project, and to comment as I believe appropriate to that end. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Alpha30

Please, your attention for this message. Thanks. --Crisarco (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare authorship question redux

Hi little LittleHeard. I seem to recollect that you took the Smatprt issue on the Shakespeare authorship question in hand when it had reached gridlock; would you like to return to the page? The article, and very much also the talkpage, are again suffering from POV problems and a static quarrelsomeness which makes me throw up my hands. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only admin who follows the page, and I have IRL issues which seriously need to take precedence. My attempt here to scare up an uninvolved admin for review had no result; after taking a look at the talkpage everybody suddenly remembered an appointment, I guess. I can't blame them, either. But you're so big and strong, perhaps you'd care to review it and come up with some brilliant solution? Bishonen | talk 01:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC).