User talk:LessHeard vanU

Archives

"won" "too" three  "fore" "fie've" 
 "sicks" "'S 'eaven!" "ate" "Nein!" 
 "'TEN...shun!" "eel 'eaven" "'twere elve'"

Ireland

You really need to educate yourself about Ireland. Its a disgrace that you have anything to do with the country's page considering what you have just said.78.16.122.227 (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence#Response_to_User:LessHeard_vanU_evidence_request. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

SlimVirgin had no duty to consider the effect on a party who had brought up the matter in the first instance, in relation to the edit war.

Hi. I do not understand what this means. Can you explain it to me? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 03:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In context, when reviewing a block and its circumstances the consideration of the effects of unblocking to any party that did not form part of the reason given for the block is irrelevent. Specifically, Zeraeph was blocked for editwarring with Mattisse on Psychopathy - the dispute with SandyGeorgia had formed no part of that decision. As it was, SandyGeorgia was the party which bought the matter of the relationship between her and Zeraeph into the content dispute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum, this may or may not have been SlimVirgins reason for unblocking - she comments only on the vandalism on Zeraeph's talkpage - but is my response to accusations that unblocking Zeraeph re-opened the opportunity for attacks on SandyGeorgia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not following your seemingly evasive language. Forgive me, but I have a penchant for clear, unambiguous speech. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. BTW, I have sent you an e-mail with diffs concerning your last request. —Viriditas | Talk 10:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending the diffs; I will respond when I have had an opportunity to study them.

I'm sorry that people have difficulty in understanding my language, so I will try to be clearer by using an example - if my sysop privileges were removed for a period because of poor decisions relating to this case, the effect on another editor who is vandaling articles which I have been previously patrolling should have no bearing on the decision to return the mop to me. Simply, Zeraeph was not blocked for abusing SandyGeorgia - which in this matter occurred after the block was imposed, following a post by SandyGeorgia - but for edit warring. The decision to reverse the edit-warring sanction need not consider the different, if not unrelated, matters that subsequently arose.

I'm afraid that this is the best I can do to explain myself. If you are still having problems with my prose I would respectfully suggest you have someone else look over my responses and see if they can explain my position better. I do not wish to repeat the misunderstandings that became apparent in our last discussion. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does that address (13)? You're changing the subject. To bring you back on track, the subject of (13) is the bottom of User_talk:Zeraeph/Archive3, especially all the content above SlimVirgin's section titled "Various", where she lifts the unblock, claiming "I don't know what this is about". Clearly, looking up at the previous sections shows an astounding, unbelievable number of personal attacks directed at other editors, including an attack upon an administrator - and an absolute refusal by Zeraeph to acknowledge any responsibility for her actions. If you honestly are telling me that an unblock was justified by SlimVirgin at 11:29, 28 December 2007 based on what you see just hours before, then you are avoiding the issue. Between 07:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC) and 09:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC), Zeraeph wrote:

"Mikka, it is my sincerely held belief that you should be de-sysopped for banning me for 28 days at all. The editor breaking the rules and continuing to do so without censure was, in fact User:Mattisse...You blocked me because you are afraid of User:SandyGeorgia and her clique, not because I did anything wrong...User:SandyGeorgia breathing down my neck and hobbling me at every turn, making me a "soft target" for other bullies like User:Psychonaut."

Now back to the topic: 13) Given that Zeraeph had posted recent and obvious personal attacks on her own user talk, SlimVirgin's unblock of Zeraph was unjustified. At a minimum, the unblocking admin should have investigated plainly visible indications of disruptive behaviour.

SlimVirgin unblocked Zeraeph at 11:29, 28 December 2007. Why? —Viriditas | Talk 10:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to ask SlimVirgin those questions. My point is; that the circumstances of the block are the primary considerations for investigating and varying any sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and those circumstances include official policy relating to editors who abuse block appeals: "A minority of editors who are blocked use these privileges poorly, for personal attack or to play games and make a point. Inevitably the response to such actions is simple - editing access is blocked in its entirety and without further discussion, whereas if the user had been responsible and reasonable, an entirely different result might well have happened....Users who are blocked are asked to use this as a chance to reflect, an opportunity to show their understanding and ability to act responsibly, and a period of time to let the matter pass and be learned from." Zeraeph was actively and knowingly engaged in abusing the unblock process, did not use the block to reflect on her behavior or learn from it, used her time to continue making personal attacks on her user page, and visited Wikipedia Review's forum to continue the attacks. After SlimVirgin unblocked, Zeraeph went straight back to disruptive editing and personal attacks onwiki. How did the unblock benefit the community and what did it attempt to achieve based on the in interim period between the block and the unblock? It is the responsibility of the unblocking administrator to be fully cognizant of WP:APPEAL. —Viriditas | Talk 11:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the unblocking admin, and I cannot answer for her. I am now aware SlimVirgin did comment that she had been in contact with Zeraeph before deciding to unblock, but I do not know the nature of this discussion. I am also aware that Zeraeph did start to remove some of her comments on her talkpage - but I obviously cannot determine whether she was intending to remove that which related to SandyGeorgia. All that I am aware of is that Zeraeph did not edit her talkpage from 06:18 on 13.12.07, until she was unblocked 13 days later. The attacks had therefore ceased.

I was unaware that Zeraeph was unblocked until I saw the discussion at WP:ANI - I had not been reviewing the matter since Zeraeph was blocked whilst I was away (sleeping) from WP and my dispute resolution help was no longer needed, I was unaware of the attacks until I saw the ANI thread, I returned to Zeraeph's talkpage to offer my continued assistance - and then to admonish her for her return to edit warring. The debate regarding Zeraeph's unblock was already well under way when I became aware of it. I was uncertain of SlimVirgins position in relation in regard of the unblock - sometimes an admin will use the sysop tools by request when they have had no previous input in a matter, simply enacting consensus - which is why I used such careful language in my initial approach to her. When the communities concerns became apparent I supported the request for Arbitration. I formulated my full understanding of the situation, including Zeraephs poor behaviour after the block, while compiling my evidence.

Again, please refer any query regarding SlimVirgins reasons to her. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comments entirely LH vU, and this is what I said on the arbitration's talk page. That particular block was nothing to do with SandyGeorgia, for her to be warned Z was being unblocked.Merkinsmum 21:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) "The debate regarding Zeraeph's unblock was already well under way when I became aware of it." OK, and the debate was already well underway by the time Sandy posted regarding it. You were aware of it, in fact, before she was. You have written: "SandyGeorgia and her colleagues, however, decided to treat the unblock as a question of permitting an editor responsible for personal attacks to continue that behaviour, and started a discussion at WP:ANI decrying the block and attempting to start the process of a community ban." Sandy did not start the AN/I discussion. That's a plain fact. (And I don't know what "SandyGeorgia and her colleagues" means.) Nor did she or anyone mention a community ban on AN/I when the thread first started; there was no coordination to that end. I urge you to retract or amend the statement. Marskell (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

FYI... Many of the diffs linked to LHvU timeline have been deleted due to the removal of Zeraeph's talk page, however, the actual comments are still available in her talk archive. —Viriditas | Talk 13:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uk meet

did you know of Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester_3 ? I appreciate it's quite a way from you, though. Merkinsmum 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regret having to bother you with this matter again

Mark thanks for your note. For what its worth (and that might'nt be a lot!)I don't think you language was 'extremely offensive', and given the circumanstances and tone of the interaction between us to that point, it was quite restrained. I apologise again for my poor behaviour. Ceoil (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of forgive, forget, thats life, move on, I posted this. I treated you and DGG harshly, there is no question of that and the irony of your presence in my block record from 2 weeks ago isn't lost on me. Is it ironic? Is it all connected? Dunno. Lets move on. Someday maybe we'll have a conversation that does not contain the words 'fuck', 'tard', or 'apology'; but until then, no hard feelings. Ceoil (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :)

Thanks for blocking that vandal. I'll keep an eye out and make sure to tell you if they do another personal attack again. Regards! FamicomJL (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lommemannen

Hi i was reading this [1] BBC story about the Lommemeannen and thought it would make a good new wikipage, and checking the deletion log found one had been speeded by you for being and attack article. I have no idea how bad that article was (i did not write it) but could you talk to me about re-creating this article in a way as to avoid it being an attack article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 07:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, yes could you undelete it and remove the last line as well that mentions the supposed name of the lommemannen as that is unsupported by the BBC source i gave you and is a privacy violation (the address) as well. I'm off to bed so i wont be able to work on the article for 12ish hours so use your judgement and i agree with your call of speedying the original article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now a proper wikipage, thanks! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The case was renamed upon closing from "Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia" to "Zeraeph". User:Zeraeph, including and socks and future accounts, is banned from Wikipedia for one year. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your attention is directed to item 1 here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph/Proposed_decision#Discussion_by_Arbitrators. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I see FT2 didn't correct the misunderstanding regarding previous incidents, perhaps not seeing my note, but it isn't important.LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

... on my talk page. Thanks and noted. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cool LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I would like to send you an email

But I notice your caveat. You have elsewhere requested information which I'd like to provide, but not if it involves the dissemination of my email, or perhaps my identity. Please indicate here, on my talkpage, or via email if you would consider suspending your disclaimer in this present instance (and any email I receive from you will remain in strict confidence, unless it contemplates murderousness). Thanks. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 01:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not divulge your identity or ip address, since that is beyond what Wikipedia allows except in certain situations (by the use of Checkuser re ip addresses - and I do not have that level of trust) and I do not set myself above that. Providing there is nothing in the email that is illegal, or is against the rules and policies of Wikipedia, then there is no reason why I would disseminate the contents. Please be assured that it is not my intention to break confidences as a matter of course, but only that I am permitted to republish any correspondence or part of any correspondence in extreme circumstances where the benefit to the community outweighs the expectation of privacy. I hope the above reassures you sufficiently to contact me. If you require further clarification then please ask. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, EeMail ₄U. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 03:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect / deletion

I've weighed in on your discussion @ User talk:Lar. - Revolving Bugbear 23:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missy Hyatt

I agree. It is inappropriate to include contentious material in biographies of living people... but what I said was on a talk page and the comment was entirely informal. Did you research this matter properly?--EndlessDan 20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

replied at ANI and talkpage.LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your message and help in dealing with the "block evader" (for want of a better expression). I just wanted to check though about User:QPRsteve, will they also be banned as a sockpuppet of User:JackQPR as User:QPRben was too? cheers, ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have indef blocked QPRsteve for sock abuse. I haven't templated the talkpage since it hasn't been previously created. QPRben was previously indef blocked. If there is a special sockblock I missed it, but the result is the same.LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a suspicion that User:Youf123 is a new sock puppet of JackQPR's. Jimbo^[online] 09:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and another JDT2k8 Jimbo^[online] 17:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..another Special:Contributions/QPRlLAD Jimbo^[online] 12:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...two more, User:Jackt123/User:QPRlad, is there a way of permanently banning him - or a lengthy ban? Jimbo^[online] 17:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's back User:Bengio. Still making the same edits as before Jimbo^[online] 14:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

Hah, I didn't even notice it was you. Nothing personal, I promise. We seem to know all the same people ;)

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 22:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thanks. I didn't know that option was in the prefs, I've turned it on. I recall reading very long ago minor edits were ok without summaries but these days I'm tending to agree it's more helpful to always use them, so I shall. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I look forward to sharing the mop pail. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction?

Woooooooh, am I glad you weren't involved in the recent ArbCom I was a party to! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What'd I do? - Revolving Bugbear 15:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re ScienceApologist - I was correctly reprimanded for use of the anglo saxon vernacular. I assume that was SA's violation? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He has an ArbCom restriction against incivility. I don't have a problem with profanity, but three incidents in one day, including trying to bully another user (who was giving a good-faith warning) off his talk page, is clearly over the line. - Revolving Bugbear 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I told two different editors to f*ck off with a 10 month gap between the two events - the first time was pre-admin - and got reminded on appropriate conduct as part of the findings of a recent ArbCom. Re your actions per SA, I realise that you are simply applying the conditions in a different finding - I was just joshing on our last couple of interactons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We've all said things that are questionable here -- I'm reminded of a time I said another user was being "disgustingly offensive" ;) And yes, I realize you were just messing around re SA, but I wanted to make sure there was no doubt, since the subject has already come up on AN/I.

It does seem that we're seeing a lot of each other lately. I shall do my best to make sure you're around for my next major cock-up ;) - Revolving Bugbear 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at ANI

I'm glad to see you self reverted but honestly don't you think its a little insensitive to advocated desysopping him?? Talk about kicking while he is down.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about protecting Wikipedia when a user with certain community given powers may be emotionally distressed, and that the removal of the tools is only for that period while these issues may be effecting him. JzG has a history of having his decisions/actions being less than appreciated by sections of the community; disallowing him the potential of seriously compromising his standing while he may be particularly vulnerable might be considered being helpful, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we will agree on this then. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thx

<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 60/0/0 yesterday!

I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet).

Thanks again, Victuallers (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An early RFA meeting to decide if Victuallers can be included as a sysop - use cursor to identify.

My RfA

I hate to sound like a dick, but could you please reword your question, it's kind of confusing. Cheers, L A X 22:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have done. A hint; it is regarding Conflict of Interest, and follows your response to Q.1. Cheers, and best wishes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, when you say delete do you mean revert, and when you say sanction do you mean block? Cheers, L A X 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. Cheers, L A X 22:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I've answered your question in my RfA. Cheers, L A X 16:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thank you for supporting me. I really appreciate it. Cheers, L A X 22:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'kay! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of hooligan firms

Hi just wondering if you could have a look again at the above article please? The user JackQPR is paying no attention whatsoever to the block nor the blocks of the various sockpuppets they have created recently since the block and it seems at the moment that every day they are back again with a new username doing exactly the same edit. The latest username being QPRILAD. Is there any chance of the article getting a longer protection from allowing new users and IP users from editing as it does look as though this will not go away and that they are determind to create new usernames. Perhaps they seem to think no-one will notice or that in the end will back down. But as you will see from the edit history it is getting ridiculous now. Two of the sockpuppets, QPRILAD and QPTsteve don't seem to have been blocked as sockpuppets, though the others (including JDT2k8,Youf123 and QPRben have been blocked in the last few days. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sorry for the second message. However another article I have on my watchlist has been vandalised by what seems to be yet another sockpuppet of JackQPR - User:Ben10023, an old account but exactly the same edit as on the List of hooligans article and surely not a co-incidence that "ben" appears in the username as another sockpuppet is QPRben. I have no idea how to approach all this and would appreciate your help please on the above and this? Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your messages. No surprise really but today there are yet another two new sockpuppet accounts from the same user. Today it is User:Jackt123 and User:QPRlad with exactly the same edits on exactly the same article. The article really could do with being semi-protected ASAP from new and IP users, as a number of other users are now just using the reverting method of dealing with it which is resulting in numerous reverts each day as both the sockpuppet and them get involved in a daily edit war. If you don't mind I would prefer it if you could bring it up at the Admin Noticeboard/Incidents as I am unsure as to how best to word it all so that it is dealt with correctly. Would that be ok with you?

This is a list of all the various accounts that I know of so far (there may well be more). Some of them seem to have been blocked already, others there is nothing noted on their user page. Plus I noticed that on one of the accounts at the bottom of the page it was listed in a "sockpuppets of JackQPR" category. However it was "redlinked" so presumably the page itself doesn't exist yet?

JackQPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ben10023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
QPRlad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
QPRlLAD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jackt123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
JDT2k8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Youf123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
QPRsteve (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
QPRben (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are probaly more accounts as at least one of them (Ben10023) is an old account from about a year ago which they used and he also edited at least once while logged out as an IP user. Plus he doesn't exactly make any attempt to hide as on the QPRlad userpage he has added"My name is Jack". Thanks. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is excellent, thanks for your help. Just a pity it has had to come to this though as the user could have been a useful editor if he had taken on board the advice given to him, but he was/is totally unwilling to communicate at all.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a thank you note

		Thanks for participating in my RfA!
		Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been wonderful, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working in the background

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For being one of the folks who does the scut work without expecting plaudits or groveling, and with respect for those whose path you cross. Risker (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seemed to me that you had some good points in your recent self-described "rant" on another editor's (extremely watchlisted) talk page. And let's just say you still have enough of the "editor" in you to treat non-admins with the common touch rather than noblesse oblige. It *is* appreciated. Risker (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at WP:AN

Thanks for your comment about the "Three Strike" proposal at WP:AN. As a result of your comment, I have created a subpage within my userspace with this proposal on. The page in question can be found here. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered your concern. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear...

You know who's fault that is? Silly WP:HUGGLE... counting the warnings rather than detecting their levels... Sorry about that... I'll shoot through his contribs and see if he does anything else. Cheers for telling me! Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Blaxthos

Rather than having Blaxthos's back and protecting his page from LEGITIMATE constructive criticims to which he has become increasingly inured, why not suspend him for falsely accusing that guy (69.244.181.184 )of being a sockpuppet of Rynort?

Blaxthos guessed. And he guessed wrong. But because YOU and others have enabled him, he has been empowered to ABUSE other editors.

He falsely accused someone of being a sockpuppet of Rynort.

I say put up or shut up.

But Blaxthos can't put up, because the charges are absurd and patently untrue.

Why aren't you holding him accountable?

In the spirit of making wikipedia the BEST online encyclopedia, I respectfully submit that you SUSPEND the POV-pushing Blaxthos for a period of no more than two years and not less than 180 days.

Thanks!

Ps His POV pushing is LEGENDARY. His MO is not particularly cryptic or inventive. Essentially, he locates conservative editors, baits them, then GAMES the system to get them caught in a prosecutable grievance upon which they are threatened with an RfA 68.40.200.77 (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this, this, and especially this, I must confess to a certain lack of sympathy regarding your concerns with this editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amythystdragon block

Hi,

I was about to block User:Amythystdragon and you won by seconds. The 31 hours you gave them surprised me, as I see it as a vandalism account. They have only been on for two days and have blanked the same page repeatedly. As a fairly new admin I'd like to hear your rationale for such a short block, so I can add it to my experience for future similar situations. Thx. -- Alexf⁴² 21:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Caveat message

I like your Caveat message. Do you mind if I steal it for my Talk page? BTW, you have "to to" repeated in it. -- Alexf⁴² 21:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New pages list

Thanks for the heads-up. Your workaround pretty much describes the way I actually work (actually, I use tabbed browser pages, but it's the same principle) - I was just hoping that WP had some nifty widget to get round it :-) CultureDrone (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks from Happy-melon

I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. I can't say I do know who you are, and I don't think we've ever bumped into each other before, but your comment and support was very much appreciated. Happy‑melon 10:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Thank you, yeah, I understand. Just got a bit tired of Rob picking fights with me. --LN3000 (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maulwurfel

Despite your unblock, this user persits in removing speedy delete tags from Men of War. He also has blanked his talk page, in an apparent effort to hide his previous warnings and blocks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that I got ome timestamps flip-flopped. Sorry about that. Time for a trip to the eye doctor, I think. Thanks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of new post in "resolved" ANI thread

I've made a point about custom edit summaries in an ANI thread. See here. Notification left because the thread was previously marked "resolved" (I've removed the resolved label as I felt the issue is not resolved). Comments would be welcomed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User LessHeard VanU. I am watching Andy for he personally attacked me. I am watching him and not threatening him. I am not harass him nor am i attempting too. If you read my post on the page you post above you will see that I propose that we (andy and I) proceed down the dispute resolution process. I also reply to accusations of being a sub-troll. I do not think this constitutes a threat I think this constitutes a motion to follow the official wikipedia rules to resolve a dispute. If you think posting that i am watching a user and I post a reply and a how-to resolve our differences constitutes harass I think you should reconsider. Otherwise, you are giving users who are in the wrong free rein. Please watch me, for if no one is watching the watchers' we are all in the wrong. Dbmoodb (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC) I would like an answer on my talk page to my query regarding what you believe to be a potential case of harassment. :) thank you. Dbmoodb (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

202.95.200.17

Hi - yeah, I was just looking at today's edits, which actually appeared constructive (though I'm no airline expert). I've no problem with the block if there's a longer term pattern of disruption. Best, Black Kite 12:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of March (band)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on March (band), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because March (band) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting March (band), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. And I have turned on the force edit summary option now, I didn't even know it existed until someone pointed it out to me. Melesse (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

JackQPR

Hi there, remember JackQPR and his numerous accounts on List of hooligan firms? Well he is back again this time as JackT14 (talk · contribs · logs)

with exactly the same edits. He's not exactly subtle or trying to hide himself, but it is presumably yet another sockpuppet of his and I hope you don't mind my informing you and asking if you could deal with it? Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the suggestion - I have shamelessly nicked the box off the top of this page and stuck it on my talk and user pages. DuncanHill (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I.P. with the limited vocabulary

Yeah, a selective restoration would have been appropriate - was that what you were in the process of doing? If so, I'm sorry for interrupting it (although your deletion summary didn't indicate that that's what was going on). I wouldn't object to that revision being deleted now, although I don't particularly think it's necessary, either. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't think it matters, so I won't. But if you want to, you have my formal blessing (i.e. it won't be WP:WHEEL). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help at Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_(North_America)#February_11

Can something be done about this? TJ continues to announce what games are coming out, but the information isn't from a reliable source. Also, the information that he posts isn't added to the article for that same reason. So he is basically using the talk page as a way to promote a bad source, as well as making it an announcement board for himself and a few others. These same people are the ones that were posting other off topic comments until recently. They've stopped since the reminder you posted, with the exception of TJ's most recent post. We can wait and see, but I can bet people will chime in with their off topic comments. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out the edit history of List of Virtual Console games (North America), you will see two IP editors that used the information that TJ posted. TJ's post on the talk page seems to be encouraging people to add the information as if it was reliable and accurate. In my opinion, if the talk page section wasn't there... IP editors wouldn't be adding the information in. If this continues (next week for example), can the sections made by TJ be stopped finally? The problem is with the talk page, which should be prevented in the first place. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IRC guidelines

Hi :-) Since the case is closed I will not be commenting on the proposed decision talk for much longer. The topic is important and I plan to start a discussion on Monday about forming a working group to develop some guidelines. Until then feel free to make your thoughts known on my talk page. Have a nice day. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

archive creation on my talk page

could you look at my talk page to see if I made the archive correctly? Abridged ^talk 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agent007ravi (single purpose account?)

Agent007ravi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has done quite a number on several Dragon Ball pages; this user went around and disruptively placed unsourced data. Since you've dealt with him/her before, what do you think should be done? Please reply on your talk page. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have indef blocked the account as disruptive. If they undertake to discuss the changes they want, and to provide sources for their different information, then they can be unblocked. Otherwise they are simply creating too much distraction and effort on the part of others. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agent007ravi is requesting to be unblocked. Your comments on his/her talk page would be appreciated. - auburnpilot talk 21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Wilco. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Twicemost

Hi there. I think Twicemost (talk · contribs) is willing to apologize for and retract his threats which led to his indefinite block. Would you be willing to consider shortening it to a week or so? MastCell ^Talk 19:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick heads-up - Twicemost (talk · contribs) has apologized, promised no further threats, and agreed to abide by WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, etc. I've therefore unblocked him. Thanks for your feedback. MastCell ^Talk 23:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your message on Durova's Talk Page

Do you mind if I email you? SirFozzie (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Turner

Can you up the protection to full and indef? Seeing as it's a BLP blanking... Will ^(talk) 22:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcomments

Ah, O.K. I was just thinking that my response was probably unnecessary because -- from what little I've seen -- arbcom doesn't actually ever use language that strong in decisions. (And don't take my style of dashes as an indication of anything!) Noroton (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emails

You have the date and times of the emails? Neat! Send them over and I'll make a chart ASAP. Cool Hand Luke 02:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Maria215

Hello, Thank you for your suggestions. I've joined wikipedia to help the artist revise his wiki page. The information that is shown presently is what i've been given to post directly. I agree that it much resembles a cv so would you be able to guide me along in fixing it? He wants to keep about all the lists of collections, books, exhibitions and bibliography so is there a way to make it more presentable or do you think some of it is not helpful and not necessary? Any suggestions would be amazing and extremely helpful! Being from an art and design field myself, i'm not going to lie, editing in wikipedia seems almost like a completely different language! Maria215 (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard vanU asked me for advice on this: but I can't fault the advice he has already posted. If you are acting directly on behalf of the artist, you need to be especially cautious about conflict of interest issues. And I agree that the "CV" style isn't at all appropriate.

I recommend raising this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. They do a lot of this type of collaboration on development, and would be able to guide you on what formats are customary. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both of your suggestions. After going through the Wikipedia tutorial and checking out a number of different artist's pages, I was able to come up with an outline that would satisfy both ends. I'm just now waiting for the material and references to base it on to revise the page. Thanks again. Maria215 (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis of A Shropshire Lad in Alfred Edward Housman

I would tend to revert any deletion made without a reason being provided, and the IP involved seemed to have a history of unconstructive edits. Even if it was well-intentioned, (s)he shouldn't really have left the "Poetry" section beginning with a section on "Later collections"! However, you're right to point out that the ASL section has problems. The idea that an in-character synopsis of the whole collection can be written in continuous prose seems questionable, and the result feels to me like an original creative response to the poems. I'd have no objection if someone removed the Synopsis or replaced it with something more suitable. EALacey (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and pruned the section myself. I hope that's an improvement. EALacey (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LHvU, I was the author of the offending synopsis. I have read the correspondence between you and EALacey and left him a message, so I leave it for you too. Some of the surrounding material which has since been edited was accumulated from earlier editors and I kept it in in order not to wantonly delete the contributions of others - not worried about that. So far as the Synopsis is concerned, it is not so subjective as you have thought: each sentence or half-sentence corresponds to a poem, in sequence, so that the whole paragraph is a true synopsis of the content of the volume of poems. To say it should be replaced by something more suitable is in fact imposing a subjective judgement - the idea that the whole sequence is 'in character' (as EAL says above) is certainly contained in the title of the whole collection, even if EAL has not thought of that. What I wrote to him is more about the procedure for making changes to it, hence I enclose my comments below:

Hi, I am the author of the Shropshire Lad synopsis. I know that you first reinstated it after an anonymous editor removed it, have thought about whether to delete it, and have acted in good faith. However it would be better, if you think it should go, to follow normal procedure for so large an edit and raise the matter in discussion (and, not with a guillotine deadline in your favour) on the Article Discussion Page. That is the normal procedure for courtesy and good manners between editors in WP, as you, an editor of 2 years standing, probably know. The source for the synopsis is, like any literary work article, the work itself, and the themes are presented in sequence as they appear in the poems. Hence it is quite justifiable as encyclopedic content, and is not Original Research any more than any reading of any literary work. I'm quite happy to discuss this more, and would have been happy before, but I am not happy that you and the guy above have made this major deletion without consulting in the usual way, and preferably contacting me as the contributing editor. So I have reinstated it now give you the opportunity to present your case. Hope we can sort this out, I am here most days and am not unreasonable, Eebahgum (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I should be glad if either of you wished to reply at my user talk. With good wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malamockq

Re Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Malamockq.2C_User:Asams10.2C_and_Deletion_of_comments_on_discussion_board. I disagree with the block. M has been irritating, but hardly deserves 31h, unless there is some incivility which I've missed. Best to reply at ANI William M. Connolley (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I've had my fill of vandal fighting for today. Thanks for ridding Wikipedia of one more. Mkdw ^talk 10:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin recall

Less, your handling of the incident seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Malamockq.2C_User:Asams10.2C_and_Deletion_of_comments_on_discussion_board. was done poorly. I was unfairly banned, and administrator, User:William M. Connolley felt that way as well. You jumped to conclusions, and did not investigate the matter properly. Furthermore, after comments were made that my banning was unfair, you never followed up on those arguments, and merely ignored the incident. I do not feel you are well suited to be an administrator. I am opening the discussion to the recall of you as an admin as per, Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall Malamockq (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per your comment, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMalamockq&diff=193744409&oldid=193714655 I have added you to the open to recall category. Malamockq (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you add that comment to my talk page? Malamockq (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my question. I asked you why did you add that comment to my talk page. Malamockq (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random note

I just wanted to drop by and say hi. Your encouragement to me in the past has had lasting impact; I think about it often, even in such minor things as editing my own user page, and I felt like I ought to let you know. :) Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I've gone ahead and added the confirmed sock. Hope I did that right; the rules have changed over the years! Thanks for the block and thanks for the update. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: re Agent007ravi

Had to run an errand so I apologize for not responding sooner. IMHO, I think we're dealing with a disruptive account whose only purpose is to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. He's been given too many warnings, blocks, etc., and shows no sign of a change in behaviour. Thoughts? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I differ in that, per WP:AGF, I believe that the editor is an overkeen contributor with no apparent desire to conform to WP practices - not out of malice but because they don't care to - and who doesn't distinguish between fact and wishful thinking. However, the result is the same - the encyclopedia suffers. I would prefer that Mike Rosoft takes the lead here, as he seems to have at least some communication with the editor, but if Agent007ravi's editing gets too vexatious then take it too AIV noting both the final warning and recent ending of block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see his newest warning? I don't know how to get my point across to this guy. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the nail on the head. Looks like he's currently edit warring on London Borough of Redbridge‎. Give a {{3rr}} warning as well? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The timeshift

No, alas the Indian timeshift is seen only in MM's edits, since he was the only editor editing at the time (Oct 2006). It is adduced that MM=GW since GW was in India and GW and MM both mention Varkala in different venues. But that's it. The smoking gun (and it is a lesser one) that SH = MM is that they both quit editing nearly completely in Nov. 2007 (really beginning in late Oct), a year latter. Neither has an explanation. If they're not socks, they're joined at the hip and vaccation together. That plus the fact that edit diff comment tics tie SH and MM together without any a priori assumptions, pretty much makes that case. And lastly, MM has socked as LE, so we know he's capable of it. S B H arris 01:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locke Cole unblock

Hi LessHeard vanU. I notice you blocked Locke Cole (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for this. I think if he were to agree to remove the statement, and to pledge not to do so again, an unblock would be reasonable. Would you be okay with this? I'm happy to speak to LC about it, but not until you indicate it's okay. Thanks. Neıl ☎ 11:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thank you. Neıl ☎ 13:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was worth a try. Neıl ☎ 09:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AIV report

I am not familiar with the Simpsons. I saw what he wrote and thought it was vandalism. When I saw he already had a final warning, I reported him. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the understanding and the laugh! --Slp1 (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo... How do I remove the report? It's already gone. I'm confused. Don't worry: That's a normal condition with me. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was, in your original post, you asked me to remove the AIV report, but it was already gone, so I didn't know if you wanted me to personally retract my report. Sorry. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AEH

Thanks for your input. I was getting my retaliation in first, as the Irish say, but you beat me to it, gosh durn it.(!) I'll send a note to EALacey to let him know and we can wax wordsome over the matter. Eebahgum (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, and without offence of any kind intended, I do think it is a little unfair of you to have placed what was written on the footing that anyone at all could delete it without my having any right to come back to reinstate it, overriding the 3rr rule. The original deletion was, after all, done without any discussion except between you and one other editor, when you could easily have brought me in to discuss. And after reinstating it I moved it, under my own steam, to the present article, in order to meet your feelings about its presence in the former. I am not in special need of being disciplined.

I cannot see that a résumé of the themes of the individual poems really amounts to original research. I have now added specific sources for each, and have lightly edited to remove (largely) the suggestion of continuity. There were no inline references in the A. E. Housman article before I created the reflist and put them in, so I am not a non-referencer (see recent work on Charles Santley, for instance).

The synopsis is now the only referenced part of the article on A Shropshire Lad. But your threat of sanction now hangs over precisely this part. What about all that quoted poetry in the previous section, and all the really unreferenced material in this article, much of which is verbatim duplication from the A E H article? Sorry to whinge, but this was never a casual edit, and if you change the ground rules then I think (if this is cricket) that you might justify your stance about original research more fully before wielding your administrative whangee - please? Eebahgum (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:VivianDarkbloom

You need to unblock User:VivianDarkbloom. There was nothing to establish that this user was using sockpuppets, only that she once had another account. We don't block editors for being sockpuppets without evidence that they're being sockpuppets. You've blocked this user because they've admitted to having another account. I've used another account, and I'm not going to tell you which one, are you going to block me as well? -- Ned Scott 04:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Ned Scott on this. A sock puppet is an alternate account used deceptively and I don't believe this block applies at all. VivianDarkbloom said "I acknowledged two years ago that I've edited under another name." VivianDarkbloom mentioned "off-wikipedia harassment that was directed at my children by unsavory Wikipedian editors." If an editor has been harassed in the past, a clean start under a new name is a legitimate use of an alternate account. The incivility VivanDarkbloom has expressed is understandable, considering comments like these that have been directed at her in the past. VivanDarkbloom should be unblocked. --Pixelface (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P

I like the in memoreum section. sock it to 'em.--Crestville (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All's well. I just have so little to contribute these days.--Crestville (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left-handed guitar

Re: ""Shout! The Story of the Beatles" gives a pretty good account of Macca's discovering the sinister way of playing guitar.":

Like gauche, not one of my very favorite words. Is this Shout a movie or something else?

Re: "I would also comment that, per point 3, it is easier for a left/right handed combo to teach each other chord fingerings, etc. since you can face each other and "mirror" the chord shape the other is showing...:

That never occurred to me. It might be more efficient to have half of the guitarists in the world play right-handed and the other half play left-handed. I tried once to teach myself left-handed, and it was fairly torture--but at the time I only had one guitar so it was something of a sacrifice to string it backward. TheScotch (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re that Arbcom case

Hi! (re your message some time ago} As if my abysmal personal life, and the Arbcom case, aren't bad enough, I am now showing signs contracting Wikipediaholicism! BANG! I have even taken to inserting the SAME POST in two different places on my talk-page! Politely, --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome, I am sure. I received your (latest) post, then the computer crashed (not your fault), and I was just about to save this post. Toning it down, you say? I will, I will. With the greatest respect, etc. till the cows come home. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFAr Sabbatical

Thanks for your comment on my talk page and thanks for your effort at the ArbCom case. I disagree though -- I don't have any reason to think that anything I say will make any difference to the ArbCom because a majority either aren't reading or aren't thinking. Since we all expect a community decision in this case, it seems to me that it's better to save my energies for that (and I'm pretty sure I'm not even needed there -- other editors make the case much better than I ever can). It's not only a waste to try to convince the ArbCom, it's a waste to try to convince anybody else using that page -- it's already so long that it would repel almost anybody new trying to learn about the case from it, but I think it may be deleted once the case is over. And Bainer's reply to our reactions shows he isn't even reading them with any care. I don't think anything more needs to be demonstrated to anybody. And it feels so much better when I stop banging my head against a wall. I recommend it. Noroton (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re User:Philippe block of User:Victor64 and subsequent discussions

archiving.

User:Ultraviolet scissor flame

Hi Mark, the above user has been making nonsensical edits to Paul McCartney, both myself and edge have asked him to stop. will you please have a word in his shell-like? Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: my edits to list of musical instruments played by John Lennon

Dear Mark,

No problem. I provided the list of his instruments to illustrate the fact that John Lennon was a multi-instrumetalist who experimented with variety of sounds and contributed to the uniqueness of many tracks (with The Beatles, and after). His many creative ideas were recorded with introduction of sounds from a variety of his instruments, like bringing his own Mellotron to the Abbey Road Studios for the recording of Starwberry Fields, and many other facts. However, you have full rights to believe that the article size should be imposing a restriction, even on essential facts about a figure of such caliber as John Lennon. His main job was playing musical instruments. That's why I added the list of instruments played by John Lennon. Regards, Steveshelokhonov 22:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is Agent007ravi, again

He appears to still be violating WP:SYN while making helpful edits, see this. You may reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen that earlier (I have his page watchlisted) and note that the links are dated January this year. I also noted that he is currently editing, after a break of a few days. If he keeps out of trouble then fine; and if he doesn't, I will do my dropping like a ton of bricks impersonation upon his editing rights. Thanks for the heads up, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fps (First person view)

I didn't know it was from "first-person view" of how Jimbo is talking. And lo! If you want to post a complaint again, used the autosystem. Signed, Nothing 444 00:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gift of Freedom

Ahh, the gift of freedom. You are free to ignore me, as I am to you (within reason lol). Signed with Freedom, Nothing 444 00:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support!

Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you

Hi LessHeard vanU! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1).

I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being

an admin to the high standard that the community deserves.

Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USANA Article

Nice joke about your comment not being about USANA :P As for the inflation rate comment, it wasn't mentioned in the article which is referenced, so I'm not sure if that's the case. If we're going to be going into that much specifics about the companies finances then should we maybe talk about creating a new sub heading? If so I'll try to gain a better grasp about how the financial market works. From what I've read previously their Q3 was only profitable after they restructured their Q2 earnings to lower them. I haven't read into much detail about this sort of thing simpley because I thought we were staying away from talking about the companies finances. Jean314 (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused. The company commented on why the drop occured and attributed it to a decline in the number of people selling their product in the US. If it were due to inflation, I'm certain they would have mentioned that in defense of the decline. I'm not posting this based on my own data, but from what is supplied in the article from the Associated Press that I've referenced (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080206/earns_usana_health_sciences.html?.v=1). I'm sure they count as a 3rd party source, but do we actually need them to state whether or not it is attributable to inflation when the company has already indicated what it is attributable too? Jean314 (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then my understanding is that my previous addition regarding their Q4 announcement for 2007 stays because it was information which was published by a third party source and features the companies stance on the issue. Correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean314 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, don't worry about it. It's good that you're policing my posts even if you did make a mistake in this case ;)

Jean314 (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About edit summaries

It was a mere suggestion. I'd do the same to anyone, disruptive or not, if many of their edits did not have a description in the box. You think it would incite something? Please reply on your talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help

Thank you for your help with the Spellmanloves67 dispute. I'm afraid that he keeps adding the non-relevant information back into the article on WebCT. He left me a note that he was going to keep posting it.Sxbrown (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Lyle123 sockpuppet

Hi, LH. I popped by during Wikivacation and saw this guy's edits right out of the chute. I am absolutely convinced we're dealing with banned user User:Lyle123, whos MO is to do exactly the same thing via his socks, namely nonsense articles related to Disney and the Disney Channel. The fact that he's using taxoboxes really convinces me that this is no first-time user. Back to vacationing. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'm referring to User:DominicanKingx. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking AnitaLover. Now my user page can be at peace. No reply necessary, just giving you my thanks and salutations. —Victor, Sr. (discussion) (contributions) 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Crossca

While I'm somewhat loathe to criticise another admin's block, don't you think your block of the above was a bit hasty? Did you take into account my comment, and that of Luna Santin? _GB^T/C 22:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, the same applies (to a lesser extent) to User:AnitaLover. She'd not vandalised past final warning, and whilst her actions did indicate a troll account to an extent, there was dialogue in progress... _GB^T/C 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya - on Crossca I do take your point, and admit that I failed to note that it wasn't the first time they'd uploaded the pictures concerned. On Anita, I suppose the proof of the pudding will be in the eating - I agree that there were trollish elements to their first few edits (I said as much on their talk page). I don't know - maybe I come down on the more liberal side of WP:AGF! Anyway, my regards to Cornwall - I was in Tintagel many many years ago, and remember it as being beautiful! _GB^T/C 22:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard vanU's invalid block of nfitz

Before heading there, perhaps best to start at WP:WQA, as I wanted neutral input on what I perceive to be Personal Attacks and a lack of civility on your part. Please be advised that I have done so. Nothing personal, and I hope you had a good Easter. Nfitz (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna Albums Discography

Thanks for your assistance and advice. I do not mind being inconvenienced for the great good of wiki. Very much appreciated 60.234.242.196 (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

archiving.

Wikiquette Alert regarding User:Nfitz

Hi LessHeard. I'm handling a Wikiquette Alert by User:Nfitz regarding a recent block that he says you issued against him. I just wanted to drop you a quick note and (a) let you know that the WQA has been filed, and (b) ask if you could briefly explain to me what happened that led up to his block. He claims that he doesn't understand the reason for the block and nobody has clearly explained it to him, but I see in the edit history that you say you have explained the situation to him several times and don't wish to talk to him anymore.

I have advised Nfitz that he should probably leave you alone for the time being, as continuing to pester you about the matter is likely only to inflame the situation further. I'd like to hear your side of the issue as well, or at least see if I could get a more specific pointer to the behaviors that led to his block, so I could perhaps address the WQA more effectively. I don't know much about what happened, and I don't have a lot of time at the moment to do the manual research myself.

Thanks in advance. :) I'll watch your userpage for replies. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your talkpage. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. My personal opinion in all of this now that I've read up, is that Philippe's block against User:Victor64, and your block against User:Nfitz, may both have been hasty, but not completely unwarranted. Nfitz has definitely taken this issue to a much larger extreme than necessary, and I will advise him (as others have already) that his continued pestering of you and other admins in this situation will likely result in another block for WP:POINT and other disruptive behavior. As Hans Adler mentioned below, it might be worth reviewing the blocks themselves for future reference, but I'm going to stay out of that process for the time being. Thanks for your time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have seen you reply to KieferSkunk [2], and this is in reply to the following sentence: "The first archive was under the summary - per WP:DENY; Disruption of Wikipedia, which continuing to pursue a discussion when the other party has made it clear they are not going to respond and therefore disrupting the building of the encyclopedia, knowingly is vandalism."

May I suggest that you read the page WP:DENY and think about whether that sentence makes sense? Until September 2006 it included vague wording about "other negative editors", but at the time it was about "categories, user pages, and tracking pages which serve to describe or document patterned edit abuse". Re-reading guidelines to see if they have changed is always a good idea, but it appears that this one never said anything remotely similar to what you think it says.

Or are you just ignorant of WP:VAND#NOT? Note that the things listed there as not vandalism include "stubbornness" and "harassment or personal attacks". That's a policy, and the wording has been there since 2005.

Your handling of this matter made me look whether you are open to recall. Perhaps you should consider this, as it might save a lot of drama. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: According ot your simplistic definition of trolling ("Making comment for the intent of creating a reaction, rather than attempting to build the encyclopedia, is trolling.") my last comment was also trolling, as is this one. You might want to reconsider that as well, because it seems that many dedicated admins spend most of their time trolling. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point by point; Firstly, knowingly disrupting Wikipedia = a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia = vandalism. I consider that Nfitz has been and is continuing to disrupt the encyclopedia in pursuing this matter despite a majority of respondees commenting that actions were appropriate. I thus archived the comments, citing I was "denying recognition" for these actions - per ...Vandalism is encouraged by offering such users exceptional notice. (I would further comment that WP:DENY is in fact an essay, rather than a guideline. There is a template which makes it quite clear when reading the page.)

Secondly, I made it clear that I was being trolled when again archiving more comments - as I had made it clear that I had said all that I was prepared to and was not going to respond further. Comment, however poorly or uncivilly articulated, that is designed to move a discussion forward is not trolling. Not accepting the reasons already (and more than once) given and repeatedly demanding different answers is not communication, and is unlikely to bring about a satisfactory conclusion. WP:TROLL is also an essay, of course, but it is not a term that I use lightly or frequently.

Thirdly, re WP:VAND#NOT... I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I have made clear that I consider Nfitz's actions in this matter to be vandalism as it is disruptive (that is the reason given on the block summary). I did not block Nfitz because they were stubborn or because they made a personal attack, but by (in this instance) by stubbornly repeating a personal attack upon the reasoning given by another admin - despite a specific warning not to - they were being disruptive. I have not blocked or even warned Nfitz since -even though they continue to use the term lie, and argue for its use in an environment where it is considered unsavoury.

Under the circumstances, I find your comments about me to being open to recall faintly ludicrous. It is for the simple reason that I do not care to have such actions started by, for instance, people unable to tell the difference between an essay and a guideline that I have no business with that process. I can have my buttons revoked by the community via a RfC, or by ArbCom following a RfAR, where there needs to be evidence shown that there has been systematic abuse of the tools, or (per my userpage) you can find a couple of admins in good standing to come and ask me to give them up. I am not participating in a popularity contest, because I do not do the sysop bit to win friends or influence people - butt because I think I can assist the encyclopedia by doing the difficult things and unpopular acts when necessary. That is why I am more recently found at AIV, commenting at WP:AN and WP:ANI, or getting into arguments over at ArbCom. Looking at your recent contributions I can see we have had little opportunity to interact (since I stay away from the homeopathy related matters).

In closing, I do not consider your comments trolling - as you are seeking a conclusion. I may feel that you may wish to work on your civility, but I assume good faith in your efforts in this matter and trust you will find my comments reasonable - although perhaps not satisfactory. I would define the difference between you and Nfitz as exampled by Wikipedia:TROLL#Pestering - "If they continue asking the question even after you have clearly answered it, or begin complaining that you will not help them, there is a chance of them being trolls". Under the circumstances you are welcome to raise any point you may feel I have not answered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I came across to you as uncivil. I tried to be as diplomatic as possible, but as I was outraged about your behaviour (not your intentions) it wasn't very easy. I hope I have cooled down enough now to be more civil. I am not satisfied with your response, and I take your last sentence as permission to explain why.

Unfortunately I feel that you still do not understand the problem. There is a general tendency on Wikipedia to throw around links to essays, guidelines or policies, such as WP:TROLL or WP:POINT, instead of just writing "troll" or "point", even in cases where the technical definitions on these pages have nothing at all to do with the matter at hand. This happens mostly to semi-experienced users, but unfortunately some admins have this habit as well.

Here is the problem with that: If you say "Nfitz is a troll", then Nfitz will just think that you are being uncivil to him, and he can choose to ignore that in order to keep the channel of communication clear. If you say "Nfitz is a WP:TROLL", then you accuse Nfitz of fitting the official definition of a troll as it is written down in WP:TROLL. You have done it with WP:TROLL, and you have done it before that (indirectly, via WP:DENY) with WP:VANDAL. If the definition does not fit, then this tends to be disruptive, because it confuses your target ("Why does he think that I deliberately compromise the integrity of Wikipedia?" – "Why does he think that I deliberately exploit tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people?") and can complicate the resolution of the conflict.

This is a mistake that everybody can make. A lot of people, including admins, seem to be making it habitually. But when you are told about it and you don't realise that you have made a mistake. When you don't admit that you have made a mistake, so that everybody can move on. That's when it becomes a problem.

You have used links to policies whose clear wording never applied and never will apply to the respective situations. You seem to have done this to justify preventing a user who wanted you to apologize for a borderline block from contacting you further.

The problem that I see here is your insistence that something is the case even after you have been alerted to the fact that it is obviously not so. This kind of behaviour is extremely unnerving for your opponent, and it seems that it was exactly such a "lying" situation which led to Nfitz's block in the first place. (But unlike the present situation, I did not examine that one in detail and may be wrong about that.) I can see two explanations for this kind of behaviour, neither of which puts you into a good light. If this is only due to temporary circumstances, please consider a wiki break.

Here are short answers to your various points, so you can see where exactly your logic breaks down:

Point one. Your equation is false. You are ignoring the distinction between article space and user talk space. Normal comments on your talk page, even grossly inappropriate ones (which these were not), are no danger for the integrity of the project. You are also assuming bad faith with respect to Nfitz in a situation in which there is no need to do so.

Point two. You stopped communicating with Nfitz in a situation where this was likely to lead to escalation. Nfitz felt that he had the choice between trying once again or escalating to the next step in dispute resolution immediately, and being told he should have contacted you instead. I think this would not have happened, but it was not unreasonable for Nfitz to think so. He wanted very specifically an apology from you. I don't think you had apologised to him at this stage, and I don't think you have done so by now.

Point three. I am saying that you are misreading WP:VAND. As I said under point one, your logic for declaring Nfitz a vandal is faulty. WP:VAND#NOT is a clarification, which has obviously been included into the policy in order to make it absolutely clear that this is not a legitimate reading. (By the way, Nfitz has said elsewhere that he has a wife and a baby, and he is currently on parental leave. I think we can refer to him as a "he".) --Hans Adler (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I adhere to a very strict definition of vandalism as "obvious defacement", and thus tend to only use the term in trivial matters. When it comes to giving users a hard time, persisting in asking questions and expecting different answers, etc., I make a point not to use the term "vandalism" for that behavior - instead, the terms I use/policies I point to include those on wikilawyering, harassment, personal attacks, canvassing/forum shopping, trolling, disrupting WP to make a point, assuming bad faith, etc. (Had to be careful how I wrote that - I almost said that I engage in those activities! :)) As you can see, it becomes a complex issue at that point.

In light of that, I would characterize Nfitz's behavior primarily under WP:POINT, perhaps with a touch of WP:TROLL and WP:CANVAS thrown in for good measure, but I do not believe it constitutes vandalism. Personally, I don't think it should really matter what term we use for stuff like this - the end result is the same, in that you don't really want to deal with Nfitz anymore. (shrug) You certainly have that right, and it's apparent that Nfitz has not been respecting that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(arbitary section break)

(ec - responding to Hans Adler) The irony of this, is that you are inferring of me precisely that which I am suggesting of Nfitz - a failure to recognise that the other side may have valid points. Perhaps I am wrong, but am unable to contemplate the reasons why. My response is that I am willing to agree to disagree and move on; Nfitz wants to have me apologise and admit my fault. I cannot do so, as I do not think that I am wrong. I realise that you also believe me to be at fault, but I can point to several admins who reviewed my actions and not thought it inappopriate and to KieferSkunk who, while certainly not condoning the actions, could understand why I came to the decisions I did. I don't want Nfitz to apologise and admit to fault, I want him to stop referring to comments made by another Wikipedian as lies and move on.

Specifically responding to your points, I did not and do not call Nfitz a troll or vandal - I was referring to specific actions as being vandalistic and trolling. By your application of logic the initial act of replacing the content of WP:Five Pillars with "This is retarded" is not then vandalism - as it is outside of article space, and nor is leaving obscenities on user talkpages for the same reason. Sorry, I do a lot of anti-vandal work and those acts most certainly are vandalism.

With the points you have raised, I will respond once more. Nfitz has been disruptive, in that he referred to comments by another as lies - contrary to Wikipedia:CIVIL#Examples, last two points in first section - and was cautioned that it was inappropriate. Nfitz was then knowingly disruptive by repeating the phrase and arguing that they be permitted to say it since it was appropriate. Lie has a pretty specific meaning - an untruth told in full knowledge of its inaccuracy in an attempt to alter or hide a truth, and is a very serious accusation. Philippes use of the term "vandal only" is not and should never have been considered a lie; even if its accuracy may be debatable. I had no problem with Nfitz questioning the validity and tariff of the block, but only with the use of language. For this knowing disruption, including on the blockers talkpage, in the form of a personal attack, I then issued the block. I stand by my consideration, and have explained all this more than once to Nfitz. I applied policy correctly. Nfitz believes that the original block was in error, but has gone in entirely the wrong way in addressing his enquiry. He then comments that he doesn't understand the reason for his own block, which is only reasonable if you agree that his interpretation of the rules, policies and guidelines - or why in particular they don't apply to him - is the correct one. I don't, and other editors versed in dealing with blocks and unblock requests also agree with me.

I see no possibility of Nfitz agreeing with my actions or reasoning, so I have decided to withdraw from the discussion. In the consideration that Nfitz's continuing (and increasingly belligerent) raising of points already answered I noted that I was denying what I now considered trolling, and used references to both WP:DENY and WP:TROLL, when archiving. Perhaps I was insensitive to Nfitz's feelings, but I doubt that any response - other than one which I am not prepared to give - would have been satisfactory.

Lastly, I have been considerably willing to explain myself and my actions to Nfitz and other parties - it is unfortunate that my explanations have not met with understanding (agreement was never on the agenda) but that has not been because of a lack of effort. When reviewed by outside parties my actions (and the initial actions by Philippe) have been found not to be an abuse of the sysop function. I am content with such a peer review. I am willing to move on, and continue working at keeping the encyclopedia environment as conducive and civil as possible. I would hope that others were, as well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC) (Oh, and I note that Victor64 is unblocked. If they return to editing, I trust that they realise that two instances of changing "taden" to the correct "Beach" in one article does not equal out replacing 6,600 bytes of information on one page and 9,200 letters on another with "This is retarded". The net effect is considerable vandalism, sufficient to indicate that the main or possibly only contribution is vandalism.)[reply]

I admit that I have not clearly distinguished between calling someone a troll or a vandal and calling their behaviour trolling or vandalising. Under the circumstances it would have been a bit complicated. I concede this point. However, you still haven't responded to my main point, which is a misapplication of policies (in the use of the terms "vandal" and "troll") as it is happening all the time and no big deal, followed by subsequent denial when confronted with the fact. You started by denying, now you are changing the subject. (My fault, in part: I see that I wasn't clear enough in my reply to your point 2. I am not saying you should have apologised; in fact I haven't analysed the situation. I am saying you hadn't given him what you wanted, and therefore it was a clear case for some kind of dispute resolution and not trolling. At least that's what I wanted to say.) You could have said "sorry, I don't know what I have been thinking, perhaps I should read the policies a bit more closely" at this point, but instead you pointed out that other people have been wrong about other things.

As a technical point, there is still a big difference between leaving an unwanted comment on your talk page and defacing WP:FIVE. The former clearly falls under WP:VAND#NOT and can by no stretch of the imagination compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. (Perhaps disruption, after a clear warning, which you have not given.) Calling this vandalising (or trolling) is counterproductive, and I would really like to get some kind of signal from you that indicates that you understand this.

When you read User talk:Sbharris#Heading off Wikidrama – does Nfitz fit your image of a troll? --Hans Adler (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last things first, I found Sbharris' response quite illuminating - but I didn't need to review it for me to comment that I do not think that Nfitz is a troll; I considered his insistence in attempting to call me to (his) account by constantly contacting me to be trolling. Again, Nfitz has his feelings injured when I refer to specific incidents and he takes it to impugn his character - but will not accept that is what is so egregious in terming another Wikipedian's comments lies ("How dare you call me a vandal/troll for calling someone else a liar!?") I had earlier seen Sbharris' comment at Nfitz talkpage, but had forbored to comment to avoid escalating the situation.

On my part, I had failed to realise that you were commenting upon dispute resolution. Totally. My bad. Upon consideration, I think that dispute resolution was commenced - but it quickly failed to proceed. Nfitz complained about the grounds for my block - as he had about Philippes block of the pupil - yet was unable to accept the response(s). After a few exchanges the matter should have been taken to another venue, but it got stuck into a cycle. I broke the cycle by withdrawing from the discussion and archiving, with the suggestion of taking the matter to ANI, but very likely far too late in the day. Instead, in another example of the communication difficulties apparent throughout the case, Nfitz took it to WP:WQA - as they were apparently discomforted by the inference of my archiving edit summaries (which I noted to Nfitz that I would moderate in later archiving, before being aware of the report).

In conclusion, was there a breakdown in communication? Yes. Could it have been better handled? Yes. Are the parties going to learn from this and move forward? Ummm... well, there is always the possibility/hope... Has this matter, overall, effected the building of the encyclopedia? No (although parties have spent time on this that may have been used more productively elsewhere). Would I have done it differently? No, if there are failings of mine then they are inherent - but I suggest that they are far from being so disruptive as to negate the generally positive effect of my efforts as an admin.

I trust that I have at last addressed your concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Further, upon another review of your post) I did not block Victor64, but I would have blocked without a final warning - I recall there were warnings on the editors talkpage - since I would be interested in preventing disruption to the encyclopedia. I would have blocked for 31 hours and risked resumption when the block lifted, but Philippe blocked indef and requested an undertaking not to resume the vandalism before lifting; different approaches to resolving the same problem.

To clarify, I have not termed Nfitz's latter campaign as vandalism - that was only to the disruption occasioned by knowingly violating policy by calling someone a liar, after a warning - but as trolling. I block(ed) for vandalism, but usually AGF trolling until it becomes clear that withdrawal is a better option.

I would also suggest that leaving an unwanted comment, even just one word, on a user talkpage can be far more disruptive than the childish replacement of an entire heavy traffic page with some gibberish; if that word is "Nazi", "paedophile", "racist", "Gooner" or something similar designed to upset or enrage the user. Often, a judgment is made on the intent of the vandalism and that perceived intent informs the decision rendered. Sysops (those who involve themselves in anti vandalism) necessarily make that judgement several times a day. Sometimes mistakes will be made, and again sometimes these mistakes will be compounded by more misunderstanding. It is unfortunate, but inevitable. It can be very distressing when it happens to you, but there is little that can really be done except to accept it. It goes with the territory. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Although there is a lot in your reply that I don't agree with, this is the first time that I actually feel that it was a kind of answer in the usual sense. This is probably because of the misunderstanding you mention. If you answered an aspect of my question that I wasn't even aware of, then it makes a lot more sense that what you said to my real concern was a bit careless.

I suspect that this kind of miscommunication has also been going on between Nfitz and Philippe and between Nfitz and you. The entire thing started when Philippe made a severe mistake. Initially, Nfitz said that blocking Victor64 was not OK. It seems that Nfitz soon made up his mind what he was really angy about: blocking Victor64 and using the term "vandal-only account". Apparently Philippe had missed completely how much the dispute had shifted. He could have said: "You're right, after 4 edits I shouldn't have written vandalism-only. Sorry, but this can happen, and I can't change it in the blog log." This could have ended the dispute immediately. Or not, but with Nfitz in a much weaker position.

If we assume that the "vandalism-only" matter had really been the main issue for Nfitz from the beginning (and it seems very likely), then completely denying all communication on this is essentially the equivalent of saying it was justified in the first place. His failure to assume good faith (Philippe apparently thought it was still mainly about the block itself) made him conclude that Philippe insisted it was a vandalism-only account although by now at least he knew it was not so. It makes sense to call that "lying", although that's obviously not a helpful characterisation. Similar to calling people's actions "trolling" or "vandalising". Philippe's failure of good faith was no more blatant than yours. The main difference was that he was punished by being blocked, and you are punished by having to read my lengthy explanations.

These were my last words on this matter unless you explicitly ask for another reply or it comes up again. But you are of course free to comment, and I will read it. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's cool. We can disagree on aspects large and small, and not resolve it, but still participate in a worthwhile process. It is important, I feel, that people can explain their position even when there is little or no likelihood of changing anything - although there is possibly an incremental/accumulative effect taking place. Admins are very likely to say, "...Because!", when discussing their actions, but they should always be available to explain their reasoning in response to civil enquiries. I hope that this is what happened - eventually - here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you two come to some sort of understanding on this. :) I was starting to get a little worried. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Kudos to HA for steering the discussion back into civility. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Nantes, Tramway de Nantes and BusWay

Hi, sorry to involve you in this, I have been a spectator to these daily reverts. My past experience with User:Firstwind being difficult I usualy tend to assume he is wrong, however not being a native english speaker myself I want to be sure. Can you confirm that User:Schcambo is right grammatically on these articles? If as I suppose he is, how can User:Firstwind be convinced to stop reverting to his versions? Can you reply behind and not on my talk page to keep the conversation consistent? Thanks! Mthibault (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of style should be the guideline for this query, but I will abbreviate it for you. When the article subject is American, British, Australian or any other English speaking nation, then the spelling and grammar follows the convention of that culture. When the subject is not of any English speaking nation then the style of the original editor should be followed - but the terminology should follow that of the native culture (i.e. we use the French spellings for the & and when it relates to the French based subject; Tramway de Nantes rather than Nantes Tramway.) The circumstances of the articles named are as follows:-

Nantes; British English (I think) - Single spaces after fullstop/period in earliest edit, use of metric as main measure rather than imperial/American units. It just feels British rather than US in the first 20 or so edits...
Tramway de Nantes; British English - per the first edit by User Captain Scarlet (spelled "standardisation" with an s rather than a z).
BusWay; American English - per FirstWind who was the first editor, and who used the American dating method of (Month/Day/Year) instead of the British (Day/Month/Year) convention in the earliest edit.

What to do about FirstWinds alleged (because I haven't checked all their recent contributions, but am AGF'ing both you and them) intransigience regarding language use conventions? Firstly, point them at WP:MoS and note that the established convention should be followed in non English speaking culture subjects. If they are still unwilling to compromise their style then you may need to look for a Third Opinion, although requesting help from the Wikipedia:WikiProject France editors may be another option. As ever, the best way forward is to find consensus, remain civil, and keep on talking.

I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed. One of the main issues is that Firstwind claims he is a "native" english speaker while it seems obvious he isn't. However, is it gramatically correct to say "nearby" instead of "near" in the case of the Nantes article (an every day revert)? What about the "capital B capital W" part of the BusWay article? I'm trying to see if maybe people might be a bit picky with him because of his past or if his english is as garbled as mine... Thanks again. Mthibault (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the Nantes article, near is correct (but it is pretty WP:LAME to edit war over). BusWay is also correct, verified by a Google search for "BusWay Nantes".

It is possible that FirstWind is a native English speaker... but one with an inflated idea of how good a one they are. Usually none native speakers English is very poor or very good, and FirstWind is between the two. FirstWind also understands but cannot properly articulate English verb structures. My concern is more with their attitude, which gave rise to my warning them. Poor spelling and grammar are fine, as long as the editor allows others to correct any mistakes. FirstWind seems a little sensitive over such matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! For BusWay my question was about the sentence "(with capitals B and W reffering to the Nantes system)" that keeps being added and then deleted. Why do you say "they" about Firstwind? Mthibault (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I now see what you mean about "...with capitals B and W...". I think it unnecessary in the article text, since it is obvious when reading the title. As for referring (note correct spelling!?) to FirstWind as "they", it is a clumsy way of being gender neutral. I don't know if FirstWind is male or female, but I am not suggesting that they are not an individual. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking him. You may also wish to have a look at his checkuser case; at least five IPs were proven to have been used by him, but were never blocked. --Schcambo (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look. I agree with Deskana that there is no use in blocking stale ip's. They may have been reassigned, even the more recently active ones. Since the main account is blocked any ip that is evidently FirstWind can be reported to AIV as a block avoiding sock (include a link to to FirstWind in the {{vandal|FirstWind}}} format in the report). If I'm around you can let me know, but I will as likely see it on AIV - which I have watchlisted. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Plus I learnt something about Singular_they ! Mthibault (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DbelangeB (talk · contribs)

Hiya. I went ahead and blocked the rest of the Dbelanges as obvious block-evading socks (and per the user's admission on the sock case page). Your block is set to expire in a little under a day, so I figured I'd contact you first about switching the block time to indef. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 17:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the puppetmaster, Dbelange (talk · contribs), was indef blocked for something unrelated to puppetry. I blocked the socks based on the fact that he was using them to evade that block. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, and he also implied that you're a racist. I took the liberty of responding. =) --slakr^\ talk / 22:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was more of a preemptive cut-em-off-at-the-pass, since invariably if I left it as only "administrators" or only "editors," the point would be brought up that either group is "out to get him/her." :P In any case, as a Trojan Administrator, I apparently have to resort to such nefarious tactics. ;) Though, I have to admit, I've always thought of myself as more of a Durex Administrator. :P --slakr^\ talk / 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey thanks, I wondered why no one else was tagging them, and now I know. Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Confederate till Death

I saw your note on his talk page and I wanted to sanity check my decline of his unblock request. Was your comment at all directed to the language I used in the decline? If so, I'll refactor. Ronnotel (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sellsellsell

Huh. My anti-vandal software did that without warning him. Of course, I could've reverted the report... Anyway, thanks for pointing that out! 21 655 ^τalk/_ʃign 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I appreciate your response to my comment on the incidents notice board. I cherish my petulance! ;-) Eganio^Talk 22:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

78.16.122.227

Sure. It was a short block and if you want to take responsibility, do. Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LessHeard vanU. Would you revert the anons last edits at British Isles and Northern Ireland? I've reached my personal 2-revert limit. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, the anon changed existing content & ignored my requests for discussion. I would be happy to discuss things there if first the established edits are restored. Trust me, once they're restored, I'm not gonna sneak away. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, Administrator Daniel Case has reverted them & I've just opened up discussion with the anon. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]