User talk:LessHeard vanU

Thank you for the courtesy notice

Anytime. :) It was a pleasure to work with you on this, as well as Natalya and JHunterJ, and I look forward to future discussions with you. And although you might not hear this enough; your help is always appreciated. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

something peculiar happened

During this edit several categories appeared on my talk page (by mistake I presume). Unfortunately I cannot see where they are to edit them out ... also my talk page has been semiprotected which I have no desire for; can you help pls? Abtract (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it, LHvU used curly brackets instead of square ones, and this transcluded a userpage onto your talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Dunc. I had intended to use the curly brackets, but have a "|" instead of a colon ({{User|Sesshomaru}} which creates links to the talkpage and contrib histories) but the correction is fine. Ta. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. DuncanHill (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My comment goes unanswered

(move to Abtract archive)

User JASpencer

(archived to Freemasonry archive)

Help please re Image Licencing

Hi - sorry to bug you but I have just loaded up my first ever 3 images and have been hit by a bot telling me I need to provide some licence details. I've looked at the relevant pages but am hopelessly confused about what licence to use. The 3 images were provided to me by the son of the original owner Ted Blake (who is now dead) to be used in conjunction with documenting his father's personal history and that of trampolining. Any help gratefully received - please post reply here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveK@BTC (talk • contribs) 11:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Oops, sorry. DaveK@BTC (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look this evening (my time) as I am unfamiliar with image policy, and on what basis you are uploading the images. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers - my time too :-) DaveK@BTC (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, "RLI|Real Life Intervened" - will look over this evening.... probably! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I've found another page that I thought might help answer but it didn't help although had a useful talk page that sems to be well-manned and I might get a response from them at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy so no panic,(I have a few weeks after all before image is deleted), enjoy some RL. DaveK@BTC (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

76.125.140.46 (talk · contribs)

When this user's 1 week block ended he made the same edit again he kept making before his block. Mathewignash (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

...and gone for another month. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. He made lots of edits in the past that were nonsense, and I had to revert them all, but he won't talk to me when I try to talk. He just changed her user name or uses an anonymous URL. Mathewignash (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just So You Know

Checkuser confirmed that Flemishboy was Bart Versieck:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Flemishboy

Sorry to inform.Ryoung122 00:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw, ta. I notice this time the block was not reset. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Abtract, Again

(archiving to Abtract, etc. archive)

another inappropriate Freemasonry related redirect

(move to Freemasonry archive)

Freemasonry

86.154.221.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) may be of interest to you. DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh... joy! :~/ LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And more

(move to Freemasonry archive)

Can I say...

as an editor of Solar System that HarryAlffa was making my life miserable, and the fact that no other admin was willing to see his behaviour as blockable was a sign to me that Wikipedia's disruption policy was broken. I had tried to remain civil and not to sink to his level. Ckatz, for months, attempted to stay above the fray and not block him, but eventually he was left with no choice. Judging from the fact his application for reinstatement was denied, it appears that admins are finally beginning to see things from our point of view. Serendi^podous 10:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

My concerns were over process, and not the genus of the complaint. Generally, WP uses an escalating scale of blocks which are initially measured in hours - this started as a week. I made my concerns known to Ckatz, whose response satisfied my qualms. Providing your POV is the neutral one, then it is fine (and so is clarifying it). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

An IP you blocked previously

I see you;ve blocked 68.195.25.27 before. I also see this user was reported to you directly by User:Peter Fleet a couple of weeks ago. This IP is the "action metal" genre troll IP. Any chance you can give him another vacation? Thanks. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I note that I previously blocked this account for block evasion. Looking over the edits I see that they are the usual genre editions, but need to know why you feel they need blocking. Are they again evading a block, or are they adding genres without discussion and against consensus? Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Red links at WP:AN

Wikipedia:BUTTHEYDIDITTOO,ANDTHEYWEREN'TBLOCKED-IT'SNOTFAIR has been fixed. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it {{db-r3}}: redirect from implausible misnomer. (Hope I'm not spoiling anyone's fun! If this merits a reply, I'll see it here.) — Athaenara ✉ 01:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(Wikipedia:BUTTHEYDIDITTOO,ANDTHEYWEREN'TBLOCKED-IT'SNOTFAIR would work.) — Athaenara ✉ 01:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You ani't spolling my fun. As I said to RegentsPark, it's not the first one and I'm surprised that none ever got tagged before. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this disruptive?

I'm trying to figure out if User:Ed Wood's Wig's actions regarding The Clique novel series is disruptive or just annoying. I prodded the individual books in the series except the first one on September 7, feeling they all failed WP:BK. He immediately deprodded them all with the non-neutral (and incorrect) statement of "this is one of the most popular book series for young people in the united states. deletion is wrong." So I sent to AfD. The AfD closed as a keep, with an opening to discuss merging the individual articles into the series page (a suggestion made during the AfD). So I started the merge discussion at Talk:The Clique series#Merges, which he responded to with "We just had an AfD which did not result in a merge. Stop it already." When discussion died down and I noted that consensus seemed to support a merge, he disagreed again and demanded I "let it go". I requested a 30, and a new discussion is still going there, with him so far limiting his responses to claiming that "no actual need for a merge has been demonstrated".

On the 7th, he also attempted to create an article for the unpublished (and as far as the author's website says, unwritten)) next book in the series called P.S. I Loathe You maybe due in 2009. This was immediately CSDed as it was a recreation of an article deleted via [[1]] (and for which several other versions of the name have been salted). Despite this and his attempted DRV on September 9 resulting in an endorsement of the deletion per WP:BK#Not yet published books, he continues trying to link to it. There is pretty clear consensus on Template talk:Clique that a red, salted link does not belong in the template, but he has readded it 8 times so far, with the links removed by 3-4 different editors. The template ended up protected, and as soon as protection was lifted, he went back to adding it again. He is also continuing to try to add the link The Clique series, claiming its valid under WP:CRYSTAL and pointing to the same "sources" rejected in the DRV.

It seems to me that he is determined to continue ignoring consensus and try to push the article existance and edit war over the links. And his continuing to try to push links to the article despite the AfD and DRV is becoming disruptive, with his edit summaries claiming its "inevitable." Thoughts? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I would wait for the outcome of the 3O - the opinionator may have some suggestions. This editor does appear to be something of a WP:SPA (there are early edits which may not be in relation to the author or books, but I am not familiar with the subject) and is unwilling to accommodate other viewpoints. I suggest that you attempt to gain a consensus among other editors, possibly from a relevant Project, and edit to that. If Ed Wood's Wig continues to revert, then they can be treated as a disruptive editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty :) So far the discussion is getting, rather interesting, since it became more of a open discussion instead of 3O. Hopefully if consensus is to merge, he will accept that. On a totally different topic, how does one go about requesting IP range blocks? There is a kid who keeps vandalizing numerous Disney pages and talk pages who has been indef blocked under at least 7 user names, and at least 19 IPs from the same ISP. He's causing problems here and at Simple Wikipedia. I did an AN/I, and I think one of the ranges was blocked, but not the rest. Do I just do another AN/I or is there some other formal process for suggesting range blocks? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Re range blocks - what you need is an admin who is familiar with the stuff, since you have to understand the how many ip addresses will be effected and how many of them are contributing usefully to WP (i.e. collateral damage - this is not so difficult as was before, because ip's can request block exemption.) I would suggest you contact User:Alison, who seems familiar with this work. She does get a lot of requests (she is also a CheckUser) so I suggest a polite request and a bit of patience. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks again! :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Cure

Hello, there's a edit problem on The Cure page with user WesleyDodds (talk · contribs). I already had a issue with him for the same reason last may. I contacted you once at that time : here's the link to the post that I wrote you then. [2] So, after that, the issue was solved, until a few days ago. To make it short about this story, I wrote a part on the cure'page in january. It has been accepted by all the people who read it as no one has erased it, (except from time to time Wesley Dodds). These days, this user has been started to constantly erasing it, judging he's now right and all the people who have read the page and have let this part, are wrong. But in this case, the issue should be clearly not to the benefit of the one and only opponent. Could you write him some words? I tried to explain it by inviting him to read the page WP:Own but he refuses to understand. Thank you in advance. carliertwo (talk) 17:40, 24 september 2008 (UTC)

I think the magic word is "consensus". Try to find a few other voices and see who agrees with whom - and why. Once the facts rooted in policy are established, then that is the way the article should be edited. The best way to achieve this is via wide discussion on the talkpage. If this doesn't work then you may need to look at the various avenues for dispute resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

re User talk:Jamal15

It is only needed to advise an editor once that "their" article has been templated. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If only Twinkle did that automatically. Should I edit his talk page every time I have to re-csd? HalJor (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for feedback

I appreciate your input LessHeard (and your experience as a Wikipedian and admin) but my complaint is a still a work-in-progress and was not ready for submission yet. And to be frank, judging by your diff history you don't appear to be qualified enough on the historical/political issues involved to be claiming at this juncture it is my "interpretation of history".

(btw - Typed text has its limitations so I want to make crystal clear I don't mean to come across patronizing saying that. No doubt you know plenty of things I am ignorant about... especially Wikipedia rules... just not these particular issues)

As for the repeated charge of "POV pusher", it comes almost exclusively by Futper and FYROM nationalists. For any exceptions...perhaps at times where I have placing my comments is inappropriate to Wikipedia conventions (like on my user page) and for those times I sincerely apologize (mostly due to my ignorance). However, the vast majority of my beefs and facts are verifiable with a little effort (and if you can show otherwise please feel free to point out which fact is in error so I may remove it as necessary).

I do ignore Futper though (at least as an admin) but only because I have indepth knowledge of his offensive behavior (via his diffs) and the issues at hand. While I'll debate points with other admins (who aren't above being wrong either), I have shown a pattern of listening to them. When an admin suggested I shouldn't have made a large number of edits... I listened. When another admin suggested my user page was inappropriate for my comments I listened. And if you are now telling me my talk page also isn't appropriate for my current task at hand... I also accept your advice.

If you check my record you'll see Futper is the ONLY admin who keeps blocking me and his focus is on editing on many of the exact same articles I do (and issues with him is the reason I keep getting into trouble with other admins... including you). My complaint-in-progress on Futper is based on verifiable facts and diffs (some of which I've already provided). Futper diffs seem to show he constantly attacks Greek positions on a wide number of topics and on a daily basis. The chances of him doing so to one specific group with such great frequency on pure chance alone are bordering on slim to none. If that's not a conflict-of-interest for an admin I don't know what is. (and this is why I feel the political issues at hand need to be intermingled with the complaint to put his behavior into context)

Let's be realistic here Less. Futper is patrolling the fricken user page of a newb looking to find something to pick on to get rid of me. That has show to you something about where his mind is at. I tried to make peace with him after our first run in but apparently he can't stop involving himself with me. He's left me no choice but to respond.

I'd prefer if I had a page (any page) on Wikipedia to work with the formatting because I am going to write a long report to WI:AN for review. Could point me to a page where I would be free to do so within Wikipedia guidelines? (if such a page exists) It really doesn't matter where I do what I need to do here... that being contribute to Macedonia and Greece related articles free of Futper finding new ways to use his admin access to harass me (and I'm not the first to complain about Futper's incivility. Here's another ).

There is a great deal of hate and propaganda being directed at Greeks these days No doubt I am far from the first Wikipedian to claim persecution but in this instance it's not just me saying it. Last year the US Congress introduced a bill (co-sponsored by Obama in the Senate) condemning the FYROM government for hostile activities and propaganda against Greece. (And I can provide you first hand evidence of it so you can see it for yourself.... if you'll listen for long enough)

Any how... I guess you have a choice here Less. Pull admin rank and go on an angry tirade against me (Lecture? Level 5 warning? Block? Ban?) without spending a moment to review some of my very complex concerns... or consider actually listening to the other side of a dispute.

The former anger angle is extremely easy to do. You don't look irresponsible making your prior comments to me. You don't make an enemy of a fellow admin. You don't rock the boat. You essentially send me on my way. But.... it comes at the potential cost that you just contributed your little bit to spreading propaganda on Wikipedia in lew of your humanity. The latter comes at the cost of you just patiently spending a little time authentically wading through my points one-by-one with me.

I'm willing to work with you here. Are you willing to do the same with me? --Crossthets (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as a case of us working together, I view it as an attack on another volunteer - which is not permitted - plus the placing of a particular viewpoint as regards the history and sovereignty of Greece as regards territorial claims by Macedonia. If' it is a work in progress, one which will lead to a Wikipedia:Requests for comment, then I suggest you compile it off-Wiki and present in the complete format when you are ready. In short, if you do not use WP space to host your views regarding a certain admin or the contentious context of a territorial/cultural dispute while compiling some WP process then I have no need to interfere; I have no choice in the matter, my actions are regulated by my understanding of the rules, policy and guidelines of WP. As long as you abide by the practices and procedures of WP, then you are free to contribute to the project as you see fit.

One other point, I really do not care to have my fitness to comment on matters of prejudice and cultural antagonism commented upon. My humanity with regard combating the evils of prejudice and ignorance in matters pertaining to differing histories of cultures, different languages and belief systems, different colour of skin and facial features, is well intact. I reject Greek xenophobia as I do any other nation or peoples or cultures or religions xenophobia - I treat it all with equal contempt. That is why I'm such a fucking wonderful liberal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I will do my edit offsites as you request. And being a "liberal" doesn't mean you are above potential prejudices. I don't appreciate you singling out Greeks for xenophobia. The remark was completely uncalled for(I am married to someone from Scotland incidentally.) Greeks can be discriminated against just like every other group of people. --209.161.238.156 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark. Here is what I am faced with Futper. A few days ago I posted some points to the Macedonia_naming_dispute talk page (with sources). Other FYROM nationalists responded to them. I just responded back to them.

Now.... Futper just | deleted ALL the points The points in question show verifiable evidence of FYROM irredentism and prominent FYROM officials admitting they AREN'T related to ancient Macedonians... which is something that is certainly worthy of discussion on an article on the talk of the Macedonian naming dispute (For inclusion in the main article)

Here are some one them....

February 26, 1992: FYROM's first President Kiro Gligorov, at an interview by the Foreign Information Service daily report, Eastern Europe, stated:

"We are Slavs, who came to the region in the sixth century. We are not descendants of the ancient Macedonians."

January 22, 1999: FYROM's Ambassador in Washington D.C., Mrs. Ljubica Acevska, gave a speech on the Balkans, where she stated

"We do not claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great. We are Slavs and we speak a Slavic language"

February 24, 1999: The FYROM.'s Ambassador to Canada, Gyordan Veselinov, in an interview with the "Ottawa Citizen" said

"We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are Slavs and our language is closely related to Bulgarian. There is some confusion about our identity."

"Futper doesn't even want to discuss them though. Doesn't even want to see them. He just deletes points from the talk page he doesn't like and threatened me in the subject "purging section. WP:TALK, this is not a forum. Final warning to Crossthets."

Futper isn't the victim here. He's the perp. This is what I'm trying to make you understand. I assume your loyalty is to the articles based on your previous response. I also assume you pride yourself above all else on your humanity. Can you give listening to the other side a chance here? Please.... please... I'm begging you for a little help. --Crossthets (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

A couple of points - Firstly, I don't know about the articles, if I have ever edited them it was to remove vandalism or correct spelling. I allow the principles of consensus editing and use of verifiable sources to produce a fair and comprehensive article. Secondly, I did not single out Greek xenophobia; I included as part of all xenophobia ("I reject Greek xenophobia as I do any other nation or peoples or cultures or religions xenophobia - I treat it all with equal contempt.") sentiment, which I reject.

I have no problem with you bringing up your concerns in the appropriate venues, it is that I do not think it should be permitted to be hosted on your talkpage and certainly not with the language used when regarding Future Perfect at Sunrise. By all means continue to work on your complaint, but within the protocols of WP practice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There was no need to add "Greek". You could have just said you are opposed to xenophobia. In addition your use of the word "Macedonia" to describe FYROM shows a bias on the matter (most nations in Europe still call it FYROM... as do most international institutions (including the UN)... as does the US Senate (that just officially referred to it as such just yesterday) And every nation that calls it "Macedonia" agrees to abide whatever agreement Greece/FYROM reach. The primary foreign pusher of the name "Macedonia" was that *expletive* Bush (although Obama strongly supports Greece) who recognized it as such because Greece refused to send troops to Iraq and FYROM did (All 40-50 of them....whereas Greeks only fought WW1, WW2, and the communists with America.. including communists in southern Yugoslavia.. now called "Macedonia") Let me quote you US Secretary of State, E.Stettinius who wrote the following on 26.12.1944

U.S. State Department, Foreign Relations Vol. VIII, 868.014 / 26 Dec. 1944)

The Department has noted increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. This Government (of USA) considers talk of Macedonian “nation”, Macedonian “Fatherland”, or Macedonian “national consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic, nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece. The approved policy of this Government is to oppose any revival of the Macedonian issue as related to Greece. The Greek section of Macedonia is largely inhabited by Greeks, and the Greek people are almost unanimously opposed to the creation of a Macedonian state. Allegations of serious Greek participation in any such agitation can be assumed to be false. This Government (of USA) would regard as responsible any Government or group of Governments tolerating or encouraging menacing or aggressive acts of “Macedonian forces” against Greece. STETTINIUS U

However. I've been going through your diffs and you seem like an OK chap. I suspect it's because you are being misinformed that you've made the comments you have. I'm dead serious when I say there is a huge amount of hostility and propaganda being directed against Greeks these days (being pushed primarily by FYROM nationalists wanting to be named "Macedonians" at the cost of Greek ethnicity). Futper definitely appears to be one of them (or is someone somehow related to the region)

To understand how I feel here Mark.... picture if you told someone Jewish to "prove" Moses had perfectly identical DNA to them. Or someone Italian to "prove" that Julius Caaesar is related to them. Or to someone Chinese to do so for Confucius. (etc) Our very ethnicity is under assault by a 17 year old country that is the result of ethnic conflicts They have one of the worse human rights records in Europe (other than the rest of Yugoslavia which seems to be even worse).... and suddenly the bad guys are Greeks and we don't exist ethnically? (Nazi Aryans also tried the same shit and said they were the "real" Greeks... as did some of the communists under Tito who started this mess. Everyone is Greek except Greeks themselves?) As I said... Greeks ARE currently the targets of bigotry. Its not as well known as the more classic examples but it is happening. :(

Any how... a question about appropriate language. On my first exchange I had with Futper I had on Wikipedia (as a newb with no prior history) his second set of comments to me were....

Every sane person with normal adult intelligence can see that your allegations against (removed name). are nonsensical. If you can't see that yourself, it's probably no use me trying to explain it to you. I will simply block you if you continue with this topic, for being either a malicious troll or too clueless for rational discussion

Is Futper implying I am insane, less than adult-intelligence, clueless, irrational, and threatening me with blocking part of Wikipedia civility standards and admin code of conduct? (to a new user with no prior history?) Is it Ok if I call Futper the same?

--Crossthets (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark, I'm not sure if you saw my question about Futper's comment above. Does it appear to match Wikipedia civility standards? (I'd like to know before I include it my complaint to ANI.

In addition I just posted some examples of FYROM irredentism on the Macedonia naming dispute (a variation of which was previously deleted by Futper). If you go over the points you'll see what I am saying about FYROM irredentism/propaganda has truth to it. (and no examples are currently in the article... nor any mention of the bills Congress introduced last year condemning FYROM for propaganda... which should say something to you)

The newb soapbox issue you had time to address is trivial compared to the charge of admin bias I'm making. (Please just look read the diff you deleted and pay close attention some of Futper's recent diffs I've provided}. Even incomplete my complaint shows all sorts of information you probably weren't aware about (about Futper and FYROM hostility towards Greeks). If you're against xenophobia as you claim then you must realize Greeks can be the target of bias just like everyone else.

I'm sorry to keep bothering you here Mark but I just don't know where to turn to but other admins (which are much harder for Futper to intimidate). All I ask is for you to carefully review my points before leaving your "level 4" on my talkpage (that you know if left as-is will likely end up with me being later railroaded). Things aren't remotely as black and white as Futper tries to make them out to be and I'd like a little acknowledgment that you see that. (even if it puts you at odds with Futper and your prior comments). --Crossthets (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• To be blunt, I am not involved in the dispute and nor do I care to be. I removed material that violated WP:NPA, and provided my reasons. That was the beginning and the end of my involvement. If you believe you have a case take it through the appropriate venues. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed you had the energy to look at one side of the issue (between Futper and I) and not the other (ignoring my question about civility twice now). To be blunt myself, it makes it appear you just don't want to risk offending another admin. However, you are using your own free time so I guess it would be very rude of me to insist. On the bright side another admin did spend a little time with me so I am at least partially satisfied. I thank you for the time you've spent thus far. No worries and no hard feelings. Cheers.--Crossthets (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

AIV

Thanks. I've posted to ANI.. believe me I know I'm inviting a shitstorm upon my head. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand I made a minor error there.. but deliberately flouting policy is why I made the ANI post. I understand that some latitude is given to some people, but WP:POINT is pretty clear. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I do understand where you're coming from, and I know there are some exceptions... but that, to me, wasn't an exception. If he wanted the page to be better, he should simply have made the page better. Doing what he did was thumbing his nose at the community and nothing more. Oh well. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: protocols of politeness

Editors complain about anything they can when it comes to being reverted. Some have even argued against my removal of uncited content despite the fact that I sometimes reference WP:OR and WP:VER in my edit summaries. I wouldn't worry about it though. Sooner or later they'll realize what I was conveying. If someone vandalizes or adds nonsense to a page, IMHO there isn't anything wrong with saying "rv vandalism" or "rv nonsense" in the edit summary. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

(move to Abtract, etc. archive)

NPA problem...

See Talk:Grande Loge de France. Problem is, the user is a dynamic IP. He doesn't seem to understand that what he claims is not appropriate because a) he is directly involved with the topic, and b) doesn't understand basic WP policies. What can be done about this? MSJapan (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have redacted the personal attacks and legal threats on the talkpage, and warned the ip on their talkpage. I assume that they will return on a different addy, but the context of my warnings remains on the above talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I also noticed the IP has about a 5 or 6RR on the article. Is it worth reporting a dynamic IP for that? MSJapan (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think an enquiry of a friendly CheckUser to see if there is any likely collateral damage from a small rangeblock might be best. Give your reasons, and if they concur and there are no other ip editor's that would be effected you might get a result. Give them diffs - especially of the legal threats - of the disruption to make your case, as well as the edit histories to prove the XRR. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... Peter's personal attacks against me continue. I have tried to be polite and not respond in kind... but it is getting difficult. Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You have extended AGF, and explained your (although I do not acknowledge that your Lodge has any more remit over WP than his, but assume that the references back your Lodges understanding) actions and WP's requirements in respect of content, but the other party has chosen not to use the appropriate venues and practices to resolve their dispute. I don't think you can do anymore. I propose you do on the talkpage what I suggested regarding Lunarian (or whomever), revert and ignore anything that does not move the discussion on. As for the article page edits, revert as vandalism anything that removes sourced content and replaces it with invalidly referenced material. Keep warning them and then take it to AIV. If they ip hop, report it to CU as I suggested to MSJapan. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

RFCU indicated too much collateral damage. MSJapan (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Peter seems to have gone off in a huff, so the attacks have stopped for now ... hopefully if he does follow through with his stated intent to appoint a dedicated "Wikipedia Manager" (see my talk page history) that person will be more civil and will follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thanks for your advice and support. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Sorry in advance if you just made a simple mis-read of the protection log and I'm being snotty and pedantic. I noticed your protection revison to ANI, and just wanted to make sure you knew about the change in the protection page; you can now specify different expiration times for edit protection and move protection. Hersfold set it so move protection would never expire [3], so you didn't need to do your move protection before his edit protection expired. --barneca (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Autogyro

That's awfully biased. It doesn't matter if they are based IN reality, they are based ON reality. I suggest actually checking out Pilotwings 64 for yourself to see that the design of the autogyros in the game have literally the same design as a real one, so to say it's a completely fictional "fantasy vehicle" on the level of something like the X-Wing from Star Wars for example, is unfair. The section in the article "Autogyro" where I listed a reference to the autogyros in Pilotwings 64 is under "Autogyros in popular culture". I don't ever recall there being some rule that says video games cannot be included in popular culture. They ARE apart of popular culture. Video games fit into the same category as books, films, music, etc. You shouldn't be deleting additions to articles just because you personally believe that video games are childish. Ceejus (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Page protection expiry separated into edit and move protection

Re this summary, it's actually not necessary. With separated expiry, one can have indefinite move protection and the expiry of edit-protection has no effect on it. I tested it recently on my talk page. Cheers.--chaser - t 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

<"big grin">I adore the WP habit of telling us slowcoaches of the latest in technological advances moments after one of us poor old duffers has failed to understand the brave new world we now inhabit... It is particularly amusing to be told it again, presumably on the basis that if we didn't know it first time around a little repetition is an insurance that we understand it in future...</"brig gin"> Thank you - and this is why I stay well clear of XfD, where my incompetence will likely result in some real damage! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I guess I should have noticed that.--chaser - t 21:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no worries - everyone (who cares, anyway) knows I am atrocious at formatting my responses... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Customer

Come on, I like "customer".  :) Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Wow...that's gotta be one of the best supports I've gotten. I'm honored...thank you!!!Gladys J Cortez 02:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't "count" any more than the others, but... glad you liked it! LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You got a thank you card!

A Thank You Card!

Dear LessHeard vanU, thank you so much for your words of support, kindness, and your trust in me. My request for Adminship has been closed, and the support the community has shown will be with me forever. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am, and all I can tell you is this: I shall try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, please tell me! :) If you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you are welcome to ask, and I shall do my very best. Please take care. G.A.S 16:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

LessHeard vanU, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, Spencer^T♦C 02:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds

One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.

I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all, , every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.—Kww(talk) 05:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Abtract, As Usual

I guess he just couldn't resist stalking and responding to my contribs any longer[4]. He did this despite this guy's talk page being locked after Tree 'uns 5 was INDEF blocked for vandalizing a policy page, but Abtract followed and welcomed him anyway as if he had just gotten "on the wrong side of someone." Now, per my understanding, as part of the agreement, Abtract was supposed to stop stalking me through my contribs and he was not supposed to do this sort of thing. I suspect he will now argue, though, that since I didn't "edit" the user page but only left warnings on the talk page, that its allowed. If it isn't a direct violation of the agreement, its certainly attempting to get around it in his usual fashion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It has just gone 1:30am here, and I was just whacking a few vandals before turning in... I will properly review this and options over the weekend. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and have a good night. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Succotash

Oh.. I'd never thought of that. It's not something we eat up here in the Great White North, though. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 05:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

151.200.32.170

Many thanks for blocking that user. Dealing with him was giving me a migraine. Thanks for keeping me from getting one :) Take Care and Have a Good Weekend...NeutralHomer • Talk • October 11, 2008 @ 17:28

Our friend has returned...

Check a few of his recent contribs... the genre troll has returned. Utan Vax (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This would technically count, this, and this. I hope these are okay. Thanks again in advance. Utan Vax (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hello LessHeard vanU. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 00:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Hubschrauber729

Good evening. Sorry to bother you, but no Wikipedia moderators have made any decision or commented on the issues that I presented in regards to this user and his interpretation of Wikipedia policies. It is getting to be extremely frustrating. -NYC2TLV (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

for your consideration. :) I've given my own summary there of what's happened since I came onto the scene (my evidence, basically) which explains what steps have been taken and why ArbCom is needed - to finish this off for once and for all, hopefully. ;) Garlands and flowers are nice, and we'd be really lucky to get them...although instead, we'll probably end up with 1 long month. :( But on the bright side, NYB sees no ambiguity and has voted to accept already, even before I posted my statement. Hopefully the other arbitrators follow suit. :) Cheers again, Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. :) Hmm, things are going slower than expected over there - most of the arbs must've been off for the weekend. Just a minor correction; the voluntary restriction was placed by myself (or else, I would have had no reason to be annoyed with J for terminating it) - but J agreed to enforce it, starting with the complete unblock on 20 July. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Rimanda (talk · contribs)

Maybe the vandalism isn't enough for a block, but as the username is similar to another user, and the first edit is vandalism on that user's page, it looks like the account was created for vandalism or harassment. —Snigbrook 12:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, thank you much for supporting me in my recent RfA. I appreciate the confidence. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Formatting feedback

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=245063774.
Your formatting seems fine now. :-)

I'll keep an eye on any posts you make in the future to that thread, and sweep my broom if anything needs tidied or fixed.

Anthøny ✉ 20:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, most kind. I would comment that there is one other area which often needs some formatting assistance and the like after I have been posting. It is that area of the encyclopedia that I refer to as... "Wikipedia editing space". I suppose you are a little too busy? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

RfAR about Abtract

I grow quite weary of reading about these trivial matters. What has he done now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for letting me know. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

plea

Biruitorul seems to want me blocked again. If I get blocked, could you solve that little problem I had last time, please?Xasha (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Two points, LessHeard vanU. First, I'm not concerned what happens to Xasha (contrary to what he says) so long as he respects his topic ban and ceases disruptive editing. Second, I've now seen the case has been referred to AE, probably a more appropriate venue than ANI, and I apologise for any inconvenience caused. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No apology necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax RfA

I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncommunicative editor

Hi. There is an IP editor, currently editing as User talk:68.79.133.27, but previously under User talk:75.41.6.98, User talk:69.218.254.170 -- you blocked them under that address -- and User talk:67.36.58.41, who continues to make problematic and disruptive edits but refuses to talk about them to anyone. I've been unable to get this editor to respond under any of these IPs (there's absolutely no doubt that it's the same person, look at the idiosyncratic use of "over last" in edit summaries, and the nature of the edits), could you see if you could get them to at least discuss their edits, if not stop doing them? Thanks, Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 04:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

LHvU, I see Ed asked for your help too. I left a threat on the IP's latest talk page User talk:68.79.133.27; a threat, because really every attempt to communicate (and Ed has been bending over backwards to try) has met with silence, and I could think of nothing else to try. Another attempt to sweetly beg them to say anything seemed pointless. I suspect (no proof, just a suspicion) we might be dealing with someone with something on the autism spectrum, and communication is just not going to be in the cards; if so, I can think of nothing else except block and revert whenever he reappears. Seems like a pain in the ass, but I don't know of an alternative; this guy edits a lot, and it's too much to expect others to review and fix them half the time.

If you can think of any better solution, feel free to simply remove my comment from their talk page altogether and take whatever approach you think might work better. It's a shame, because looking at a small random sample of their edits, roughly half the time I would agree with them instead of Ed (sorry Ed). I just feel that a willingness to communicate is non-negotiable here. --barneca (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, its fine. I would only suggest that you place the same message on the next address that pops up, as the address is dynamic and they may not have seen it. You can then link to it on every subsequent ip addy block. Hopefully it will get through. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian

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/Abtract-Collectonian/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/Abtract-Collectonian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just as a suggestion, using links for anons in this way 86.44.28.52, 86.44.20.40 may make it easier to review. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, and so done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Siouxsie & the Banshees page

Excuse me to bother you once again. :) Well, There's an issue on the SATB. I wrote my arguements against 3 users here[discussion page] : this is about this "editorial problem/ the 1986 picture". Could you read all this chapter and also more important the replies I gave to the 3 users who disagreed with me. As you edited to this article, I'd also like to know your point of view on the subject. I also asked on the Siouxsie board what people thought about this pic and some of them found it "scary". To conclude, it seems to me that there are cure fans that hate siouxsie. One can meet them on forums when one mentions sioux's name and I suspect wesley dodds and Jd554 to be like these cure fans as they try to put down the image of the Banshees. I asked you to join on this issue as jd554 asked his friend wesley dodds to join. see the link [[5]] Carliertwo (talk) 19:52, 15 september 2008 (UTC)

Page Vandalism

Don't worry about it, I assume would you do the same thing for me as well. RockManQ ^(talk) 20:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I've mentioned your interaction last year with User:Infoart at WP:AN/I#Saatchi Gallery complaints and legal threat. Ty 23:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Howdy-Do, again

I am basically 'living'at the Sarah Palin article and have had a number of run-ins with editor:Collect. We butt heads...often. So...I got curious who this "clown" was and found this [[6]]. I shared it with a couple of other editors that were having trouble with Collect and they said to go to an admin. I came here first. Advice?--Buster7 (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Er.[7] Ty 05:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see it was a mistake to show it around town. Is this somebodies idea of a joke? No wonder the Wikipedia community doesnt trust admins. They are alchemists. Not funny, at all! sad really.--Buster7 (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Collect is not an admin. Having seen the kind of collisions he's been in, I assumed it was an attemtp at humor when I read it, also. Dayewalker (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that User:Collect is not an admin. If he was I would quit Wikipedia this second. My dissapointment is that Admin:Ty put a goodhumor label on it. This was NOT humor.It displays a mindset that will act against the community. But....Nevermind! what's the point!--Buster7 (talk) 06:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Prepare to despair.[8] Ty 06:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Bah!!! Humbug!!! --Buster7 (talk) 06:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

lol. Ty 07:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm so very happy to have been able to help - and am grateful for the 5 "AdminPower" points I earned whilst not actually doing anything... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Less...Maybe after the election you could explain to me what this is all about. It is certainly NOT the response that I thought I would get. Shouldn't admins be concerned and actively respond to evidence of questionable editor intent...especially an editor that is so quick to challenge w/ AGF. How can I AGF after discovering.../User:Collect/z--Buster7 (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Election? ...Oh, the US Presidential one. A couple of things, firstly, I'm a Brit so I don't have the investment in the result and therefore the candidates articles (I am for the encyclopedic value of well sourced/NPOV, but am for every article) and secondly I was very recently involved in the Sarah Palin Protection ArbCom after a very busy few days keeping the article clear of partisan editing when her vice candidacy was announced - I was one of the admins who protected it in the very early days, and I have tended to keep away from that area since. I also was immediately struck that the link was to a humourous page, and not even an original one at that. I regret that you do not appreciate my sense of detachment from the partisanship currently vying for dominance on these pages, but it isn't personal. When the furore has died down in a years time, then will be the opportunity to take stock of what was and what wasn't unethical editing of these articles - but until then the twin requirements of keeping the articles open as far as possible to all editing and the assumption of good faith toward all those who do edit means I am not going to investigate the motives of someone based upon their creation of a non-serious page. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mind your detachment at all. I know you are much-involved maintaining Wikipedia. I appreciate your position and your response. I didn't expect or request an investigation. I was merely doing what fellow editors had suggested...letting an admin know. Thanks...--Buster7 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Check with Lar. I think that will answer all your possible questions. Also visit WP:GAMING before whinging that I am a "clown" Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Saatchi Gallery

Yes, I'll email and copy you in. Do you mind your email address being shown on the email? If so, I'll do a Bcc. Ty 00:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed you about this. Ty 00:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing private on my part. Only privacy concerns might be relating to the gallery. I think the gallery needs to understand the basis of editing is WP:NPOV based on WP:VERIFY using WP:RS, and the resulting material is not a wiki editorial comment nor necessarily the view of the editor(s) of the article, which they seem at the moment to think it is. Ty 03:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Mixing me up ?

I'm a bit baffled by your comments? are you mixing me with the user Scott McDonald? --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

RfAr/Abtract-Collectonian

Please see my response to your question on the workshop talkpage. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose the following. If you agree, please sign below the second set of +'s. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

+ + + + +

By agreement of a majority of the involved administrators, the restrictions here have been amended in the following way, and come into effect at the conclusion of this arbitration case:

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

• Matters between Abtract and Collectonian shall be handled according to the restrictions/remedies enacted by the Arbitration Committee.
• Abtract and Sesshomaru are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. This restriction may only be enforced if violations are reported directly by either Abtract or Sesshomaru - it does not apply if violations are reported by any other editor(s).
• Further remedies concerning Abtract, Collectonian and/or Sesshomaru may be enacted to include banning interactions with any other user, if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.
• The editors are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should any of these 3 users edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).

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

+ + + + +

Provisional (Bullet 3 needs to have Collectonian removed as a party, see Bullet 1 - and thus Bullet 4 needs to be changed from 3 parties to 2. Also, do we acknowledge A and S's "working agreement" currently being acted upon?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LHvU's question - do they not now have a working arrangment that does involve contact? Or is the working agreement the separation of the disambiguation page. Thanks for the clarification, -- Natalya 21:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Re bullet 3, 1 and 4; the Committee's current proposals handle problems that occur between Abtract and Collectonian. Based on my own (perhaps unfortunate) experiences, even though we think a problem user is handled, another user can emerge (managing to cause the exact same problems for affected users). Should this occur, I don't think Collectonian should have to go through so much trouble again, and I prefer that the community try to enact remedies concerning Collectonian and another user, again with ArbCom as a last resort. That was my rationale for these tweaks. However, if you'd both prefer avoiding it, and going directly to ArbCom, I don't have a problem in changing it accordingly.

Re: working agreement, I'm not sure of the exact details of the arrangement so was reluctant to include it at this point. It's ambiguous; I think it was declared that the restriction between S and A may only be enforced if either of them reported the other, and that otherwise, they can interact with one another? I'm not sure if there's an additional agreement concerning how disambiguation pages are to be separated between them (if at all). Based on arbs comment at workshop/pd page, I also think there's preference for those restrictions stay in place. However, we should probably get on the same page before passing this point. After that, perhaps it can be reworded to note that both parties came to an arrangement at [link] where this restriction may only be enforced if either party reports the other...? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification; while there was an original attempt to treat all parties equally, it has become the case - supported by ArbCom - that resolution revolves around Abtract. Any problem that recurs for Collectonian (and as a vandal fighter, this may not be infrequent) that is not Abtract related should, IMO, be treated separately. This may include amending these restrictions to include said editor, but maybe we should leave that as a penultimate option rather than having it made - we should not be given reason for not trying less restrictive methods of resolving issues.

As for the "working agreement" - which we need not detail, but revolves around the two editors not reporting each other for violations of these restrictions, I do believe that it needs mentioning so any third party unaware of A & S's circumstances does not needlessly warn or report per these restrictions. As ever, I wish to see all parties contribute usefully to the encyclopedia with as little hinderance as possible. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that less restrictive methods should always be tried. However, I would not ever consider the after-effects of vandal fighting to be a type of harassment that would fall under my explanation above. I'm thinking of something (unfortunately) far more sophisticated. Enacting further remedies will always be an option, hence the word 'may', but I think it needs to be included to confirm that although the Committee have handled what happens between Abtract and Collectonian, this does not mean we cannot enact further remedies involving Collectonian and another user in that manner. If there's no issue for 6 months, we could probably drop that bit altogether. Additionally, the edit-warring concerns were just over a month ago - we concluded that the blame could not be on any one party for mindlessly reverting, with/without harassment. I'd like this caution (intended for the long term, rather than the 1 month short term) to stay for at least 3 months, so bullet 4 needs to include all parties. (I did not add evidence in the case on those edit-warring concerns because that is something we can resolve confidently. The issue was with the harassment and wikilawyering.)

That said, agree completely with the second bit, which I think clears up my doubt. I've amended it, so let me know if that bit is done. Natalya, hopefully that clears your question up too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

With your explanation re the wording regarding the parties and the amendment of the part in respect of Abtract and Sesshomaru I am happy to sign up to this wording. I shall do so as soon as I am logged onto a secure computer under my sysop account. LHvU (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC) (This is my non-admin editing account.)

Thank you for your assistance as always. Seeing you have the agreement below, I won't repaste the notification I've sent - but this is what I put up at WP:AN. [9] Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed amended restriction

+ + + + +

By agreement of a majority of the involved administrators, the restrictions here have been amended in the following way, and come into effect at the conclusion of this arbitration case:

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

• Matters between Abtract (talk · contribs) and Collectonian (talk · contribs) shall be handled according to the restrictions/remedies enacted by the Arbitration Committee.
• Abtract (talk · contribs) and Sesshomaru (talk · contribs) are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. This restriction may only be enforced if violations are reported directly by either Abtract or Sesshomaru - it does not apply if violations are reported by any other editor(s).
• Further remedies concerning Abtract, Collectonian and/or Sesshomaru may be enacted to include banning interactions with any other user, if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.
• The editors are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should any of these 3 users edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).

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

+ + + + +

Agreed LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Natalya 11:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Abtract's recent edits

I think the user page comment is directed at Collectonian. I would ask him to change the user page and if not done voluntarily then I would do it. I rarely block, but it you think it is needed to prevent an edit war, do it before. Otherwise, you can wait to see how the situation plays out. You know more about the situation that I do, I trust your judgment. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Inquiry

I got that message again, but there are still things I don't get about the interaction part. Does this suggest that Abtract would be blocked? Or would I be blocked since I edited the page long after Abtract did? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming the agreement between Sees and me over-rides the restriction ... in other words, if we don't complain, no action will be taken. Abtract (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't mean to complain Abtract, but why did you label that as "accidental" when the edit was intentional? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I was being polite since it was obviously incorrect (only one link per line) I assumed it must have been a mistake. Abtract (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You made that ridiculous assumption because you so chose to, not because it was an honest mistake. Does it occur to you that it was a red link which met the requirements of MOS:DABRL? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Calm down ... the section you point to refers to the first mention of the term being disambiguated not to subsequent redlinks after a bluelink. But if you want to change it back please do so. Abtract (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am "calm". Anyway, I've restored the edit, but would still like to hear LessHeard vanU's thoughts. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, Abtract, why did you mark it for cleanup [10]? You just said it was ok to change it back did you not [11]? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What I said was change it back if you want to, that doesn't mean it is correct just that I am not going to fight you because we are getting on so well I don't want to upset that (or you). As I said earlier, it is clearly incorrect and, by attracting attention to it, I anticipate that another editor will express the same view. Abtract (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And as you will see, SlackerMom agrees with me. Abtract (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Response to Sesshomaru (and Abtract); while the restriction between you and Abtract remains in place, per the new wording, it recognises that the two of you have an understanding and if neither of you report each other then there will be no action under the restriction - this way the restriction serves as a mechanism to keep the two of you from edit warring and acting disruptively on articles/dab pages the two of you edit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Piano non troppo

He's been removing MySpace links from other articles as well, not just Siouxsie & the Banshees. He is on a rampage. Check his contribs. I've had a lengthy discussion with him on his talk page, but he continues on, removing links based on his unique interpretation of policy. I wouldn't be surprised if others feel the same way you and I do. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Abtract (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shall not interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Collectonian, on any page in Wikipedia; harass or wikistalk Collectonian such as by editing pages that Collectonian has recently edited; or make uncivil comments about or personal attacks upon any user.

These restrictions imposed upon Abtract shall be interpreted in a reasonable fashion so as to allow Abtract to continue with appropriate editing while preventing any further harassment of Collectonian. Any attempts to "game the system" or "wikilawyer" the details of the restrictions are unwelcome. Should Abtract violate the restrictions imposed upon him, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator, with any blocks to be logged here. Collectonian is urged to continue to avoid any unnecessary interaction with Abtract.

Furthermore, please note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on October 16 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi LessHeard vanU! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U request

A Request for comment/User conduct has been initated here regarding User:Roux (formerly User:PrinceOfCanada). As someone wish past interactions with this user, you are invited to comment. --G2bambino (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(noting here in case anyone is watching)No thanks; as I remember my interaction was brief, civil, and of no consequence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hi LessHeard van U, and thanks for supporting my successful request for adminship. It was nice to see all the kind comments I got from my supporters and I hope that I will be more useful to the community now that I have the tools again.--Berig (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Jat people

Hi LessHeard vanU, please can you semi-protect the Jat people page for a indefinite period of semi-protection, as many ethnic group pages are semi-protected indefinitely e.g. Jewish people, this stops anon vandals vandalising the page.

This anon vandal has been vandalising the Jat people page for the last 4 months adding uncited information and pov. (I think you blocked him for similar disruption on other page).

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.185.128.31

So please can you give this ethnic group (Jat people) indefinite semi-protection like the Jewish people and many other ethnic groups have on wikipedia.

Best regards,

James.

—James smith2 (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Airlines

Many thanks Mark. I am really indebted. Take care. Tasos. (Dr.K. (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC))

User Meven

Hi there, User:Meven who you recently banned has created a new account at User:Mevenn. I just thought you would like to keep an eye on him. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked for block evasion, and edits rolled back; since I live in Cornwall (but born elsewhere) I have some sympathy for the ethnic place name argument, but Cornish articles have the UK name - with any Cornish derivative mentioned in the opening sentence - and so Breton placenames should be the official French placename (that you would find in an atlas) with the Breton variant within the text. If you see another resurrection, please let me know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Big Black shiny revenge

Ha! Beat me to it - and an obvious sockpuppet to boot. --Rodhullandemu 22:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ip incivilty/harrasment

Hi, I posted the incident to AN over here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Vandalism_and_incivility_by_and_ip. Your input would be much appreciated --Flewis^(talk) 00:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

River Marteg

Hi. Back in January 2007 you queried the content of the stub article River Marteg. I'v just come across it and my first thought was "so where exactly is this and why is a 2km long stream (presumably a tributary of the Wye) notable?" and tagged it as such. I then checked the original author's contributions and now suspect it might be a hoax. As you are the only other editor to have taken an interest in this curio I thought you might be interested and take another look. Suggest you comment on the article's talk page, but I'll "watch this space" as well. Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Godrevy

I notice you commented on the Godrevy lighthouse artice. I have left a comment there and also on the page Talk:Godrevy_Island. Any thoughts on this? (If so please reply to those ta;lk pages)

86.152.159.197 (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have seen your work on Godrevy and left you a comment there. Thank you. 87.113.92.208 (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

question

Hi, I see you reverted a comment on my talk-page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BodegasAmbite). I presume this is related to the 'exchange' with user 58.107.179.146 (talk) on the talk page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-tobacco_movement_in_Nazi_Germany. is this guy a nut? should I just ignore? (did you revert to spare me his rants?) --BodegasAmbite (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

User talk:58.107.179.146

I think your summary of the issue in the blocking message of the above was spot on. The "OMFG Nazi-related material" issue seems to plague every even vaguely Nazi-related topic. Objectivity and neutrality are the Holy Grails of the historian, and the article on anti-smoking initiatives in Nazi Germany (I feel) does a good job. I congratulate you on your conduct. :) SGGH ^speak! 16:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

More on Godrevy

As previously discussed, I have now added a subtantial amount of new material and made the lighthouse a sub-section. Do you think the article should be re-titled 'Godrevy Head'? If so, please can you do so. The former articles 'Godrevy' and 'Godrevy lighthouse' could then redirect to 'Godrevy Head' perhaps? Please leave any comments on the Godrevy talk page. Thanks. 87.112.74.137 (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than move the content, with edit history so as to comply with GFDL, plus talkpage and its history, to Godrevy Head it would be simpler to create Godrevy Head as a redirect to Godrevy - I think the simpler/shorter name covers the general area, including the village, headland, island/lighthouse, etc. so anyone searching under those options can be directed to the catchall title of Godrevy. In the unlikely event of the article getting so enlarged as to need forking then the redirects can be undone, articles created and linked from the "main" Godrevy article (which would also be the case if the lighthouse section is deemed sufficient for its own article again). Please let me know your thoughts on this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You will note that I have slightly changed the article to better reflect the above; I would note that the redirects can be made to point to the section headings within the article rather than the article generally. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yup, mark, I'm OK with that way of redirecting - good move. Two small points:

Firstly, if one types 'Godrevy Head' into the search box, it doesn't redirect to the Godrevy page. Should it?

Secondly, I would question one point in the intro; I think where you have written 'Carbis Bay', it should read 'St Ives Bay' as Carbis Bay itself is just a (small-ish) beach at the far side of St Ives Bay from Godrevy. 87.115.88.33 (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I shall do the redirect of Godrevy Head drekkly; funny, I live just outside Helston and had always known the entire bay as Carbis Bay, with St. Ives being within it (like Mounts Bay contains Penzance, Newlyn, Marazion, Portleven, etc.). Never mind, I'm a grockle and I will change the wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Typing Godrevy Head should take you straight to that section of the Godrevy article, and I have done the same for Godrevy lighthouse. Please note that redirects can be done by any editor, read up on WP:REDIRECT. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Mark

During 2004/5, I contributed to Wikipedia as User:Andy_F. But after a longish absence, I forgot my password and - you guessed - I hadn't given an email address. In April this year, I remembered it (see my contributions to Pentire Point and Stepper Point but since then I forgot I'd remembered it, hence my recent anonymous (IP only) contributions to Godrevy (and a few other pieces on Cornwall).

Anyway, let me introduce myself - hi, I'm Andy. You can now reach me at User_talk:Andy_F. And, yes, I have now made a note of the password :)

I hope we can continue to collaborate on contributions about Cornwall. Andy F (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool, it is always difficult with an ip - especially one with a contrib history of a couple of days but some clue as to how WP works - to know how to pitch a discussion as regards familiarity with WP practices/processes. As regards Cornwall article editing, I was much more involved 2 years ago and now just keep a few "local" places on my watchlist - but I am always happy to see another name start cropping up on those articles. See you around. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Lessie

Oh you *!%! I'd just made one of my piercingly insightful statements in an RfC and the "you have new messages" banner gave me the fear lol:) Sticky Parkin 13:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

AOL Hometown

Why are you restoring links to AOL Hometown? It has been shut down, and the links don't work anymore (they just go to a notice saying that it has been shut down). --Zundark (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it was one of the link spamming vandals I was reverting... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Douko

You'll have to forgive me if I didn't have the time to rereport Douko while I was preventing the death hoax from being inserted seven times by two different editors. These things really do have to be taken seriously on the first report. I place my first priority on preventing the hoax from appearing, and try to keep the actual amount of time the hoax is displayed on the order of seconds. I think that is more important than giving vandals a series of warnings.—Kww(talk) 22:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that we seriously need a different book for these death hoaxes. This isn't like scrawling "Miley is a poopy face" into an article ... it's as severe of a BLP violation as can possibly occur. When I'm sitting there calling up the history of the article prepared to roll-back the edit, there's absolutely no feedback to me that my report is being ignored.—Kww(talk) 22:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The hoax is on her YouTube channel at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxYUX_DcCk8, and that's the source of the trouble this time. I've requested protection at WP:RFPP. If you could see to it being quickly handled, I'd appreciate it.—Kww(talk) 22:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

England/United Kingdom

In reply to your message today regarding my deletion or substitution of the name "England" with "United Kingdom" on articles relaing to Cornwall I have set up a new discussion on the Cornwall Wikiproject page. I realise that there were extensive discussions about this topic in the past but I felt that the issue needed re-adressing after reading the portion of your note to me, which read:

the use of both England and United Kingdom in Cornish related articles is a compromise worked out between both sets of nationalist minded editors

Whilst I respect that there were large discussions on this topic and also that I should have posted on the talk page before ammending any article I do find it hard to beleive that any Cornsih nationalist would be able to accept the use of England as a description of Cornwalls' geographical position in the UK. The subject of Cornwalls' constitutional status has been debated for centuries and it is by no means set in stone. there is a wealth of evidence to prove that it has been illegaly annexed to England and, in that respect, we should come to a conclusion based upon a completely neutral and unbiased viewpoint (that includes the viewpoint of the British government).

Thankyou for your message and I'm sorry about dragging this up again. I do strongly beleive that this matter isn't finished with though. Fletch 2002 (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Confused

LessHeard I am a little confused about the comments you added to my talk page. Could you please explain what you mean about you fibbing Jean314 (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Abtract

Hi again. :) Given the relevance to Abtract, and potentially to the Abtract-Collectonian case or the restrictions between Abtract and Sesshomaru, wanted to notify you of something on the WP:RFArb page - please see my note under "Request to amend prior case: Alastair Haines". Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Without knowing the particulars, this does not appear to be an example of Abtracts previous behaviour issues - unless your investigations prove otherwise it seems a case of Abtract reverting with minimal communication. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find anything beyond that either after taking a small look. Will refer the Committee here in my note on the RFArb page. Cheers again :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

John found something which could look like a problem (?); he's presented his evidence below his initial request. I've made a separate comment under my note. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite a thorough investigation. I concur that there isn't sufficient material to draw a conclusion that Abtract is wikihounding (or whatever the term de jour is), and that the recent issue with him and Collectonian can too easily create an unwarranted impression of same when faced with such examples, but Abtract may perhaps need to recognise that a practice of reviewing the edits of an editor in other articles in the immediate aftermath of a dispute - and reverting "problems" found with minimal discussion - is not going to look good when viewed in the light of the Abtract/Collectonian Arbcom. Suffice to say, if there is a third situation in the near future with some other editor involving this practice I think Abtract is going to find an extremely unsympathetic response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As I was typing out the edit summary of the above I was reminded of a similar dispute between Abtract and Elonka (I think) which I noted in A's archives when I was gathering information for the Collectonian ArbCom. I suppose this now depends on whether the Haines request feels there needs to be further looking into Abtracts habits... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Spamming User

Hi there - can you advise me please what can be done about a spamming user - new user Simon webmaster appears to work for a company selling play equipment and is intent on spreading his particular form of gospel. DaveK@BTC (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Redacting comments

Next time you edit somebody's words, as you did in this edit at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, please make a note of that. Given your experience here, I assume you well know that and that you simply forgot this, so I added the note for you. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I must say I was also a bit surprised at your action, and completely bewildered by your response on User talk:Jitse Niesen. Perhaps you would like to reconsider? MSGJ 21:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The removal of incivility is controversial (WP:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments and WP:RPA) and in my experience often not helpful. If you had removed JRSpriggs's comment in its entirety, that would be all. But you only removed part of the comment, making it appear that he wrote something different from what he actually wrote. That is was I mean with "redacted" and that is why a note is necessary. To me this is absolutely obvious, but I have no idea whether it is codified anywhere. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines says "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning" (emphasis in the original), and I think that in this instance you changed the meaning, however subtly. I'm amazed that you apparently do this regularly and thus I added a note in the section at WP:AN asking for others to comment. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, the only comment at WP:AN came down on your side, so it looks like there is more support for your position than I thought. I still think it's very wrong, but I will leave it here. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

With only one response it is hardly conclusive, although I would comment that this is the first time that I had been commented upon on that basis in removing unsuitable text. Since WP policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive and there is no strong guideline either can point at, perhaps it is best to describe this as a open to interpretation situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:BerkIsRussian

Hi there; it was a judgement call, and in view of his impressively abusive edit I was in two minds whether to give a final npa warning or block him. I warned on the basis that he had not been warned and had not previously vandalised. But I am happy to leave him blocked, and will remove my warning. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 13:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Voting

In regards to your comments about being overridden by AC and Jimbo, I think that it will not apply to any candidates getting currently more than 50%. I think it's pretty obvious who Jimbo meant who he would veto, although personally, I don't intend to block anyone. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your comment on my vote talk page. A lot of the candidates are quite keen to see this potential for "interference" removed, so I dont think there is much to be concerned about this year. It would create a situation where Jimbo would loose his power if he exercised it inappropriately. Obviously he and others need to be much more clear about how it has been used in the past, and when it is likely to be used. I've suggested they should clearly veto a candidate onwiki, before the election, but I doubt their right to veto is really even necessary :- even people who have a clear distaste for arbcom are not voting for the candidates who are keen to overthrow or undermine it. Anyway, I respect your position - this potential for unseen interference is worth drawing peoples attention to. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your question

You've asked what I was thinking. I've explained more here. No one bats .1000. Certainly I haven't; that's no secret. I take ownership of my mistakes and do my best to set them right. The question for the election is: does this candidate? Durova^Charge! 22:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The manner in which the concerns were raised was reminiscent of polemic, rather than reasoned consideration (IMO, FWIW). As regards ownership of mistakes; Jehochman was mentored by you, and the ending of that relationship revolved around that one particular matter, so responsibility for perceived failings regarding WP actions cannot entirely rest upon his shoulders (again, IMO). Lastly, is there anywhere that translates baseball analogy into cricket terms, I am often placed on the back foot when faced with such terminology, finding that I am bamboozled by the sticky wicket of a game which I don't understand. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

From Daniel

Danite123 (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Hi there, I’m researching an article about Wikipedia, and its editors. I wonder if you I could talk to you about Wikipedia, and how you use it, for a magazine about not-for-profit organisations. If you could spare some time and wouldn’t mind answering some questions by email or phone, please contact me on Bennett.d@hotmail.co.uk, or leave a message here or on my talk page. Many thanks,

Daniel

I would be pleased to consider any questions received by email - please use the "email this user" facility on my user/talk pages. I would draw your attention to my Caveat, displayed at the top of my page, in case there are questions you would not feel comfortable in having disclosed should I be concerned enough to disseminate them. Providing we are both happy to continue, I will then answer as best I am able. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Your apology

Thank you for your apology. I am very happy for people to question me agressively regarding my actions (especially since I'm an Arbitrator) and I did not object to your comments, especially since they were justified in this case. I apologise I didn't answer your questions quicker; acting rashly got me into that mess and I wasn't about to comment and make things worse. I've been quite impressed with how this situation has been handled and how people have acted, yourself included. Thank you. --Deskana (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Jew of Linz

This article has been locked for editing recently and I would like to request that it be unlocked. The author of the book herself edited that article, including a section on the resultant criticism, which was fair and balanced. However, the article has since degenerated to the point were its main focus is upon the criticism and not the book (so much so that the article is verging on irrelevant).

The editing protection ended on 17 July - it should be available for anyone to edit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

the return of bart versieck

i believe that in a few days bart versieck will be allowed to edit again on wikipedia. i am wondering if you will still act as his "mentor"? it would be nice to see bart acknowledge the special rules that apply to him once he starts editing again.

as far as i can see he hasn't truly accepted any ban since he went along with the rules you proposed (i ignore the occasional sorry i wont do it again (and then doing it again)). every time he said it wasn't fair (as others were allowed to do it, yeah duh, you acknowledged certain special rules bart) and he tried to get unbanned early. hopefully things will be different this time, but as long as he doesn't understand / accept why he gets banned it will happen again soon then later.

i think it might help (or at least clarify things for other admins) if you go over the ground rules again with him (either private or on his talkpage) and let him clearly agree with them. also lets keep it simple, only adding his own opinion on talkpages (so no rearranging, adding time stamps, ..., whatever). Boneyard (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the rulebook (y'know, the one Bart thinks is optional) once a block is over then the editor is supposed to be treated as if the slate is wiped clean... However, the only reason Bart wasn't indef'ed this time is that some other drama erupted before a handful of responses came in, and the discussion was archived. Nevertheless Bart was sanctioned (he isn't keen on that, but there is nothing to say that an archived consensus isn't legitimate). Since then he has slightly socked with ip addresses, but has generally stayed clear of this place. I don't think I will be able to do much if he should go back to his old habits because very few people are prepared to give him a second chance - he will simply be blocked indef the next time someone complains on a noticeboard. One bit of hope is that I am in contact with Bart on Facebook, so I will let him know about this discussion - I will have to stretch an undertaking that we would not discuss things WP, but I think the circumstances warrant it; I will have a word with him drekkly. Perhaps it will be sufficient... I hope this meets with your approval, and thanks for the heads up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary

This brought back an old memory and a much-needed laugh. Quite a few years ago as a student I interned at the King of the Hill television series, which was then new. Part the responsibilities were to answer the fan mail. Most of it was routine: running charity fundraisers seeking donations, children's letters. I had a supply of 8" X 10" glossies to send out when requested. A limited number of glossies were signed; those usually went to the children. On the last day of the semester an unusual letter arrived. A father was planning his son's bar mitzvah and his son had chosen our show as the theme for the children's tables. He wrote very politely asking if we might provide something as a surprise for his son.

Normally I'd never disturb a cast member, but one of the writers also did a voice for a supporting character. He had a few free moments and with a big smile he wrote out congratulations to the kid on becoming a man. That day at lunch I had a happy report for the rest of the staff. We've finally hit the big time; we're a bar mitzvah theme.

Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 03:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Distraction is an under-rated tactic, although it can be quite difficult since you have to rely on the other party noticing and being smart enough to comprehend... So well done to the both of you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Late to the party again ! I love it when a great edit summary flashes across my screen. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Careful! The last person who waxed lyrical about my edit summaries is currently running for ArbCom at an approval rating of 87.4% . You have been warned! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano

Replied on my talk page but as you seem distressed I thought I'd reassure you here too. I will not stand by and watch anyone sanctioned for doing something they feel is best for Wikipedia. Theresa Knott | token threats 13:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and a little reminder... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice - I'm tempted to change it now but that might be seen as poor taste. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User comments

Cant see where it says I can remove people's comments on my talk page. AllI can see is this:

Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission.

So I assume that applies to removing other people's comments too, no? And what do you mean by "too late"? Was that a threat? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It was vague. It didnt say that a user can remove someone's comments in an active discussion. Not all active discussions are warnings. I added this note there. If people can remove anyone's comments from their talk pages, this shold be clear. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed the sock's comment to you, restore if you want to. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It is practice that it can be done instantly - it indicates that the comment has been read and responded to. Other people are not so permitted, except for obvious vandalism (and for which I thank you). Oh, and the "too late" was in reference to someone else getting there first. Nothing more. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It does seem a bit strange to remove some comments from the middle of a discussion. It means consensus can never be determined from a user talk page. Removing a whole thread (which may be just one comment) when you don't want to discuss it any more is an other thing. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User talkpages are not for the creation of a consensus, but to allow communication between the editor and the community. Sometimes certain editors are not welcome on other parties talkpages (there are and have been ArbCom decisions forbidding particular editors from editing another contributors talkpage) and as it is important that lines of communication remain as open as possible while diminishing potential disruption then the "owner" is permitted to remove any comment except a few templates. If the point needs to be made, then it has to be made elsewhere. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mantra

I don't want to pester you, but just wanted to briefly follow up on my complaint about TheRingess deleting material from the Mantra article. You said you didn't want to intervene and discussion was still going on at the talk page, but what about when the discussion is finished, which it now is? This editor has a track record of doing this kind of thing and doesn't respond to discussion. (I won't pester you any more.)

You can answer here.

Sardaka (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm an admin, I'm here to be "pestered"! ;~) I have to say that the talkpage on Mantra is fairly sparse, and the only dialogue of any kind is on TheRingess' talkpage - which doesn't seem to be proceeding much further. I suggest giving it some time, and then attempting some sort of dispute resolution if there is no progress in discussion. From a review of the recent article contribution history it appears that the two regular editors are you and TheRingess, so requesting a third opinion might help break the deadlock. FWIW, I agree that the article should relate to the history and cultural/religious implications of the mantra and that it should not be hosting a list of mantra's - there may be an arguement for creating a List of Mantra's article to hold all public domain examples that can be found, which could then be linked to from the main article. Perhaps you might like to suggest this to TheRingess and see if that prompts a discussion? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

_David^WS _(contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays! _David^WS _(contribs) 19:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Damn Dang you!

You took out ALL my best sardonic wit, you <incivility removed>! Now please don't block me for being uncivil... ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 22:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Fuggit, just as I had located the blick button! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That damn dadgum blick button hides every time one needs it! ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 22:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"my appointments"

Well, technically they are his, not the community's. Is this a good thing? Oooh, I wonder if you can guess what I think? DuncanHill (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

hmm!. DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If anyone looked at my edit summary of my comment (in the brief time it existed) it could be seen that I even suggested a rewording that would have provided a less autocratic timbre. I also have no desire for a discussion - I don't think there is any basis for a debate, certainly not with that attitude. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Favour

Could you look over my recent contributions, and see if anything (or anybody) sticks out or strikes you as odd? DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing that strikes me as odd - but then I do go around reviewing a lot of peoples contrib histories, so am used to clumps of editing. I recognise User:Enok Walker, because I blocked him and then edit conflicted with you while removing his vandalism. If I am not even close, can you chuck me some clues (tomorrow, for tonight a pile of washing up needs doing before I sleep). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, see my comment on an AfD and take it from there. DuncanHill (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, not sure I have anything to add... Disruptive SPA with a far greater knowledge of WP procedure than can feasibly be gathered within the accounts editing timeframe. Looks like it is being dealt with (and the AfD should result in keep since there are more than enough references to establish notability and there is no real parent article it might be merged to). Does this help? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't put my finger on who it reminded me of last night, I've slept on it and still can't quite get it, but there is something niggling away at the back of my head - it does remind me of something I just can't remember what! DuncanHill (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hope you're OK

This [12] seemed appropriate :) DuncanHill (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, fine. It is something to gird yourself to act boldly, recognising the possible consequences, only to find that the action has been made irrelevant... It could have been worse, since I have always considered Ryan to be an honest broker - even though I often do not agree with him. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Stepping aside on Naked short selling

Well, it seems that I may be assuming some new responsibilities in the near future, and thus must be conscious of certain potential conflicts of interest. Thus, I am going to be removing Naked short selling and the other articles involved in the Mantanmoreland decision from my watchlist. It's my thinking that members of Arbcom should avoid enforcing decisions of the committee, even if those decisions were made prior to the individual's appointment. I recall you being active and interested in the AE on these pages; would you mind terribly if I left them in your capable hands? Perhaps we can find another administrator to back you up. Risker (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: Thank you for your truly unique support - the strength of your faith in me is both humbling and inspiring. R.

I shall be pleased to keep a weather eye on the article (it seems that some other Arbs apparent were also active there, and may need to disengage), and any others were you would not wish for the appearance of a COI. If any occur to you, just let me know.

I did vote tactically at the end, but yours was my one legit vote - but only one amongst very many other people. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, one of my future colleagues was very active in the original case, and has done some extensive editing of the series of articles, and he has already stated he would recuse from any non-editorial activity with them. That is good for the articles, I think, as he has developed a level of expertise in editing them. I have a feeling if any administrative or arbitrative actions need to be taken, there won't be any problem finding sufficient numbers to ensure the right thing is done. I can't think of anything else off the top of my head, but more may surface as I tidy up - I am truly disturbed at how ridiculously overgrown my watchlist has become! And thanks. Risker (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

RFAR

That's why he needs to be banned and we're done with him.

I am so fucking sick and tired of Giano getting away with his shit over and over again. There is absolutely no other editor who can so thoroughly flout the policies and behavioral guidelines that every other editor is expected to follow. *I* was not edit warring; Giano is the only one who was edit-warring, as he reverted at least five other editors, removing another editor's comments in an arbitration discussion, which is beyond the pale. Horologium (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is wrong - but so is allowing another free for all crisis to develop. I have written to Spartaz requesting they either rewrite their opinion so not to allow drama to develop, or to agree to have them removed for the sake of keeping some semblance of peace. Thanks for doing the right thing and talking to me instead of re-re-reverting. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am currently weighing whether I wish to refactor my statement on the arbitration page, as I am now in favor of dropping the banhammer on Giano, something which I was not in favor before (my somewhat snarky statement notwithstanding). If he deletes my statement, I will not accept its removal. This is the direct result of Giano being shielded from any consequences for his actions; he is not supposed to be blocked by anyone other than the Arbcom, and some of the admins who are friendly with him will wheel-war with arbcom to unblock him. The longest he has ever been blocked is <3 days, and he's never had a block expire (every single one of them has been overturned). Horologium (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that Giano has read your statement, at least he has posted below it - however Spartaz's statement is immediately below Giano's and obviously Giano read it and responded - not the fabbest thing of a long line of non-fabby things he has done over the years, but we have to get away from the knee jerk reactions to such acts. Stoking the fires when confronted by Giano's latest escapade is entirely the wrong thing - I have said I will abide by (and execute if requested) any sanctions derived from calm and considered discussion. Let us try for a little quiet introspection to inform our reactions, just this once. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Spartaz' frustration, but he went over the line and his comments were rude, abusive, and violating NPA and CIVIL. Giano should have asked for someone else to intervene rather than gone off on them himself, but there was clearly provocation.

This was not one of our better episodes, but there's a longstanding policy of not taunting people subject to sanctions, so I am inclined to suggest that we let the warnings issued stand and leave it lie. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Your are right - I didn't want to warn him as I was hoping he would withdraw the comment, which he did, but on reflection my saying he should bin any warning received was flat wrong. I apologise. I suggest, however, I do not refactor/remove my comment on Spartaz's talkpage, unless there are further responses to it, in a continuing effort to calm things down. Thanks for taking the time to comment, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You better watch out, LHvU, if you keep on with your intelligent reasoning and calm responses, some might actually want to put you on the arbcom. You don't want THAT hassle, do you? ;) Tex (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Request Notification

Hello, LessHeard vanU! A user you have blocked, EastLopkanAdvocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has requested to be unblocked, and your username is listed on my notification opt-in page. The unblock request is on his user talk page here. If you no longer want to recieve these notifications, remove your name from my list. If you would like to be notified about future unblock requests from this user, remove this template from your page. Thank you, DavidWSBot (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your heads up

Is much appreciated, as was your comment. IronDuke 16:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Cryptic Message

I'm not sure what your message on my talk page meant, but if you can wiggle your way onto the arbcom at this late date, I'll support that. Tex (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

U-552; belated thanks!

This is a belated thank you for your involvement in this dispute in November; I've not been around much, and I'm just catching up with myself. So thanks! Xyl 54 (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have helped, although to be honest I do not recall the matter - however I believe I have previously read the article, so it is possible I contributed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Mark, my very best wishes for the festive season stay safe and talk to you in 2009.--VS ^talk 11:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, friend. I hope you have a great New Year :-) - Oh, and wish everyone over at WR a Merry Christmas from me, too! ;-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; our paths have crossed a gazillion times and I've found your comments amusing, helpful and thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which ones which! (Not to mention the great barnstar!!!)

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

"...or..."? ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

block

why was I blocked. I was responding with a copyright question. 75.91.169.43 (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Promethean

O'Hai there LessHeard vanU, Merry Christmas!

LessHeard vanU,
I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

Feliz navidad

A vos y a los tuyos. Nice to see a pic of you. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Y a usted y el suyo, también. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Request Notification

Hello, LessHeard vanU! A user you have blocked, Samanthausa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has requested to be unblocked, and your username is listed on my notification opt-in page. The unblock request is on his user talk page here. If you no longer want to recieve these notifications, remove your name from my list. If you would like to be notified about future unblock requests from this user, remove this template from your page. Thank you, DavidWSBot (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Note

I have requested arbitration. NonvocalScream (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Roobit thread from WP:AIV

I have moved this thread from AIV to ANI, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Roobit_thread_from_WP:AIV. (Seems to be what you had suggested to do anyways, as I agree with you that AIV was not the best forum for it). Cirt (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not going to remove it from AIV for obvious COI considerations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Disney Vandal

I have tried to stay away from the whole crap with the DisneyVandal (aka Bambifan101) and his continued returns to vandalize articles. However, I ended up getting a little involved again and found myself completely disgusted to see that User:Colonel Warden is now actively supporting this known vandal's edits and is doing edits for him,[13] including undoing merges that have been in place since September,[14][15] and reverting attempts to restore them,[16] restoring Bambifan101's IP sock edits, etc. He is even using false edit summaries in these edits. I mean, I know he's a big time inclusionist, but surely it is not appropriate to do this sort of thing in support of a well known vandal and sockfarm? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I will drop the good Colonel a line. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have done so, but the results are not encouraging. I now recollect that I have some past history with the dear Colonel - so having warned them regarding observance of WP:BAN I am now withdrawing. If you can find another admin - there was a discussion within the last 36 hours on one noticeboard, I recall - it may be best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Rather sad to see him defending his helping a known vandal :( I've left a note in the current AN/I thread. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Notification of edits to userpages

No, in fact, I can tell you from personal experience that editors are not automatically notified when our userpages are edited. I have to manually check to see whether it's time to update my vandal counter again (I only bother every 5 or so vandalisms, nowadays). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply; Yeah, I remember once checking my userpage history to see some bit I had deleted to find that a vandal and editor had edit warred over it some time ago. I had just assumed that changes would be notified; it's the orange bar, you don't bother watching your own talkpage and therefore forget to do the same for the userpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand

Hiya.. just wanted to let you know, the conversation I was having with Betacommand was me trying to help him act in a way that wouldn't get him blocked. // roux   17:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Power company

The power company just called and they said to give you the go ahead! Very funny. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hi, LessHeard vanU!

Thank you for your opinion at this discussion.

Unfortunately, this topic was closed and archived as "Solved" by User:Black Kite, although it is not solved yet. I asked him about it [17], but he did not answered me. Probably, this discussion will be continued.

Happy Holidays and best wishes in the New Year! Krasss (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hello LessHeard vanU. Can you delete http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mangalore&diff=259327349&oldid=259181557 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crazysoul&diff=259347967&oldid=239830717 revisions permanently. It reveals my personal identity on Orkut? Please do not block the user. Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 10:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much. But I find it's not of much use since in a few revisions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mangalore&diff=260286653&oldid=260286388 my identity can still be seen. I don't understand why did the User make my identity public this way even if it was a guess. Kensplanet^T_C 13:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope that the information will "disappear" when the cache refreshes, but if it doesn't (give it a day or so) then you may request need to request WP:OVERSIGHT. As for motive, perhaps the other editor was just trying to find reasons - in all innocence - for your viewpoint. There doesn't appear to be any bad motive. It does show, however, that having your details on the net and then editing WP in a manner which can result in someone accessing that information is something you need to consider in the future. 13:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. I know it was not a bad motive. But what was bad is that the User must have searched my profile there on Orkut, who knows for hours maybe and then posted it here. Was this necessary? This is not acceptable from a User who has been on Wiki for 2+ years. I don't mind if the User posts my previous WikiHistory. Kensplanet^T_C 14:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-admin placement of sock templates?

Hi LessHeard,

Thanks for your help with the Barryispuzzled socks. I wonder, would it be appropriate for me (a non-admin) to place {{sockpuppet}} templates on the user/talk pages of the socks that were blocked back in August? --Xover (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Go for it - just remember to link to the case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, done. See User:Barryispuzzled and the suspected/proven category links on the template. Again, thanks for all your help with this. --Xover (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

thx

I bet he'll discuss the issue first now. --KP Botany (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll watch his talk page. He may be willing to discuss the issue. I suspect you're right. --KP Botany (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy

One of your blocks is under question at User_talk:Tony1/AdminWatch#Problems_with_this_proposal:. MBisanz ^talk 22:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Responded there; Wait for the howls of "Admin abuse" since I was more than slightly caustic in my response... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight

That IP

Dangit, intended it to be a 24-hour block--my mouse must have gotten stuck. Blueboy96 23:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reviewing my SSP on Fadulj. Took me forever to sift through all that, and it went unaddressed for a month or so, so I'm happy to have it dealt with :) -Freqsh0 (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppetry case

I just wanted to left you a comment regarding the following statement "I am reviewing the case for sockpuppetry as part of my WP responsibilities; you are perhaps fortunate that I decided to comment rather than block you for abuse of policy and write up my conclusions."

I know you are an administrator, but should not you first hear the explanation from the accused? You did look on the evidence at hand, and concluded that I am running some ridiculous IP scheme here. If were guilty of sockpuppetry or whatever Koalorka accused me of, I would definitely say so. According to you, I am some sort of master of proxy with ability to use different IP addresses from countries around the globe to vandalize this amazing learning tool... If so, what makes you think that I will not be able to just switch to another IP tomorrow and keep on editing. Also, I would probably not care to respond to your "conclusions." The truth is I am a woman in 50s and know very little about IT. Definitely, I am not some phantom hacker or computer wizard.

As an administrator on this encyclopedia you have responsibility and you should act in the best interest of Wikipedia. There is NO sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry here. I certainly hope that any decision made will be to the benefit of Wikipedia and not some ridiculous ego trip! Best Maria Mariaflores1955 (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The evidence, that you have "colleagues" who support your viewpoint per your own admission and that there are more than the one ip that is your non-logged in address whose only contributions are to remove the image you object to, is to me overwhelming. Since these other ip's are possibly your colleagues then perhaps one or more of them are able to use proxies, and we are both of an era (I am in my 50th year) where being female is not recognised as being a reason for having a lack of knowledge was at the forefront of our formative years. All I can do is look at the evidence presented and, as I said, it appears to me to be conclusive. I would point out that, in this matter, I was content to merely comment and not to act to see if another sysop more experienced agrees with me or not. I was content to leave my impressions for another to judge, so I do not think that my ego is any danger of unbalancing the encyclopedia in this matter, and only responded to your comments in turn. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall agree to disagree with you conclusions. I have no control over my friend and in the end it was him who contacted me not the other way around. If he has elected not to log in to make revisions that is also his choice. Also to clarify, by no means I believe that women are not brilliant IT operatives, my point is that I am not one... that is all. I appreciate your response and the time you invested in this matter. I still hope that another administrator will see the petty and petulant nature of Koalorka's complaint and that this matter will end up well for me. In closing, allow me to wish you many more productive years at Wikipedia. Maria Mariaflores1955 (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the tone of the above, it may help your case to link to it at the SSP page. I don't mind agreeing to disagree, and I think you may be wise to advise your friend how their help has been interpreted in this matter and request that they do not do so again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:NPOV editing

I understand you, and I'd appreciate the review u'll make to my edits. Thank you. Yamanam (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87 and Dapi89

LessHeard,

I am sorry, the tone of THIS voice reflects your own actions and quality of judgemen (or should I say: Lack of same).

You have managed to fill me with contempt and I am generelly a very tolerant person.

How can you concider adding ONE line to an article vandalism?!!

Don't you think that you should look into the matter? Especially since the deletion is done by the by the anonymous Dapi89.

I am not in the habit of throwing myself on my knees to people who has corruptet their own authority by tyranni, so I am gonna make this short and sweet: Revoke your blocking of the users HenrikHansenDK1631 (me) and my college mate WW2historyBuff WITHOUT FURTER DELAY!!

Different people are using this the IP address 80.160.207.18 besides us, and even if the accusation of vandalism is true (which it is not) you can not block them all.

I have now looked in to the matter, and what has apparently triggered Dapi89 is that others besides us is disagreeing with him (80.198.48.60 not ours 80.160.207.18 (the 80.xxx.xxx.xxx segment is the main Danish ISP provider)), which is obviuosly a problem to him.

I asked him to argue for how a simple observation can qualify to be an "Original Research", and you know the rest. The log reflects the entry "reporting what is now blatant vandalism". I have deleted nothing. I am the victing of his deletions. So block him!!!

If you look in to the history of the page it is clearly reflected that he concider himself the supreme ruler of what is relevant, and what is not for this page.

Keep in mind, that in the end the blocking procedures of Wikipedia is at mercy of the users having the same IP address, and it can be changed within 24 hours. A lot faster than going through the rehabilitation procedures at Wikipedia as I have read them.

In the hope that you take a different course of action so I can return to my normal tone of voice!!

HenrikHansenDK1631

PS: Don't bother having this IP address blocked. It is dynamic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.129.75.129 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Er.... Thank you but no. Read WP:EDIT WAR, WP:MEAT and WP:SOCK before committing your charmingly inept English to prosperity. Having the Stuka's "Jericho Trumpet" referenced in later popular culture is as important as the fact that WWII broadcasts by the BBC to the French Resistance used the first five bars of Beethoven's 5th Symphony would be in that article; true, but of very little importance with regard to the notability of the subject and something perhaps to be inserted into the later parts of the article - and not the opening paragraph. However, arguing semitics is pointless with someone or a group that is prepared to violate WP policy to place such an inane "fact" into the article. The named accounts will not be unblocked by me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Not late by the Julian calendar

May your year be a pleasant one, or at least may you forget quickly any unpleasantness, and may the sands of time never get in your shoes. And when you get to be this guy's age, may some young thing snuggle up to you and may you then understand that somewhat mysterious look in his eyes, and may that be a good thing, too. And watch out for the sand. -- Noroton (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

He even has my haircut...! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Betacommand

Hey there. I apologize for not leaving a note on your talk page. It was my impression that you were acting as a non-involved party (member of the body of admins) rather than as an involved admin, so I didn't see it as reducing your block, but rather reducing the block, which is why I didn't see it necessary to drop you a line. (Plus I figured you'd see it on Beta's talk page or AN.) Regardless, I was mistaken, and I apologize for that.

Moving beyond all of that, there seems to be a very mistaken impression that I was moving for an unblock of Beta. I wasn't, and I don't particularly know how this impression spread, but it did, and there's no reversing that. What I'm asking of you is to not unblock, but to reblock using a specified duration (45 days seems perfectly reasonable to me). My hope is that this time off will allow cooler heads to prevail and in a month and a half, Beta will be able to re-enter the community. I really see you as the only person able to change this block without a massive shitstorm. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted, since you provided it even if there was no burning requirement. I was involved in so much that it was my finger, but I tried to keep out of the subsequent arguments other than opposing the proposed ban. My position has been and remains that an indef block is the appropriate sanction for knowing disregard of policy (or, in this matter, restrictions) until as such time as the disputed action/position is retracted - and then it becomes null and void, and should be lifted. Once Betacommand acknowledges the priority of the restrictions and his past intransience then I am for lifting the block, whereas when a block is for a definite period all Betacommand needs do (if it isn't too long) is wait out the block and try not to get caught next time. There is no acknowledgement of past poor behaviour, and it is possible they will still maintain the line that policy outweighs restrictions if they get brought up again - and I don't think that that is good enough. Notwithstanding my views, I would of course unblock Betacommand should consensus arise that that is the agreed course of action and would be pleased to do so if it was regarded as appropriate, being the blocking admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears Beta has acknowledged past wrongdoings and has committed to seeking approval for any and all automated editing in the future here. Had you seen this? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not yet, I am crawling chronologically through my watchlist and am still reviewing stuff from a couple of hours back - ANI (yes, I have seen BC's talkpage) is usually one of the last so I will get there soonest... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

PediaPress

What is it you don't understand? DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, the relationship between PediaPress and the Foundation - and what or where is the most appropriate way they can define and notify the relationship (I agree with Jimbo that a userpage that looks like an advert is likely not the best). I also did not realise that the links provided in the original comment - which I only reviewed when this matter was brought up yesterday - should have provided an obvious link between PediaPress and WP (in fact, the original poster must have not either since they brought up the matter at WP:UAA originally). I don't really understand the technical links either (I don't use the js.notebook facility owing to lack of clue) but that doesn't mean I am unable to follow simple guidance notes - and I found a distinct lack of same in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is PediaPress agreed with the Foundation to develop software that sites which use mediawiki stuff can add. This software can be used to export articles as pdf or get printed books. The software has been added to some other Foundation sites already (such as Wikibooks), and is also used by Commonwealth of Learning, who run WikiEducator. When someone buys a printed book from them, some of the money goes to the Foundation (hopefully leading to Jimbo having to write fewer irritating personal messages to each and every one of the millions of people who read Wikipedia). I do agree that it would be better to have a page in Wikipedia space to explain it, rather than a userpage, but communication with editors is not one of the Foundation's strong points, alas. The press release was in 2007, and this is the first I had heard of it.

As to using the thing, just copy the code to your monobook.js, empty your cache, and "add article" and "my collection" appear at the top right of any page. When you click "add article", the article is added to your collection. Clicking "your collection" brings up the list of articles you have selected, and you can then change the order of them, give the collection a title, and get them exported as a pdf file (for free) or get it printed and bound (for a price, seems slightly less than other print-on-demand services). The instructions could be clearer, but considering they have been written by a German they aren't too horrendous (I understood them!)

On sites such as Wikibooks you don't have to bother with the monobook.js, because the software has been enabled already (this is the "collection extension" that PediaPress mentions on his userpage). You get a nice clickable link in your toolbox at the left.

So to sum up - useful thing, Foundation needs to communicate with us about it better than they have been, and clearer user instructions would be nice. Basically the same as the rest of Wikipedia then :) DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

... Well, are you going to write the (NPOV/non COI) article in mainspace? I suppose if there were the appropriate links then that would be the best place for it to sit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

SSP follow up request

You were recently involved in issuing blocks at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oxyman42 (2nd) and advised of being notified for follow ups. I have identified a number of unblocked IPs you might want to look at, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Oxyman42, based mainly on harassment of User:Abd. However, I just came across a difficult one (not interacting with Abd as far as I can see). It is a registered user, Railwayfan2005 (talk · contribs), registered on 17 November 2006. (Oxyman42 was created in April 2006 ). But the signs are:

• edited 60163 Tornado [18] (as did User:Firefly462 [19] on the class article)
• recently queried User:Tony May about the removal of images on List of rolling stock items in the UK National Collection, as did User:Firefly462 [20]
• has the same cat image on their user page as Oxyman24 [21]
• interested in railways and images, specifically London (Railwayfan recently added this commonscat [22], which contains images taken by Oxyman on Commons)

MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging by a conversation about a recent revert on my talk page, the above is probably just a conincidence. He certainly doesn't talk or act like Oxyman. MickMacNee (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think that there is a few people with very similar interests, and they are going to inhabit the same pages and ask the same questions - and railway spotters are notorious for "flocking"; it is very likely to be a false positive. As for ip addresses, I don't think blocking them after such a period is going to do anything, they have been abandoned and it is more likely for the sanction to catch an innocent editor than the returning block evader. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

He's still vandalizing

Check the latest edits from User talk:75.73.147.237 as he is vandalizing again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a further week. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess you should give him a longer block. He's doing it again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Should I make a note in my appointments for 13 weeks from now? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

CosmicAnthropologist (talk · contribs) blocked!?

I wonder why you have indefinitely blocked this Wikipedian, CosmicAnthropologist, who created and contributed on, among many other useful and technical articles, Moufang polygons? That's the surest way to drive an intelligent guy away from contributing. If he is to be punished for sockpuppetry or vandalism, an indefinite block is too harsh. I've seen worse vandals in the past in Wikipedia getting only 3-month suspension! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.111.86.73 (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

They are a block evading sockpuppet, created to circumvent the sanction of the master account, and as such are blocked indefinitely upon detection. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Page protections

There are some pages in need of protecting on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, the page has been deserted for some time now. Elbutler (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall take a look. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

'It almost seems as though there is a link between punk rock and anarchist sentiments.'

I'm sorry, what is that supposed to mean? I am an anarchist myself, and I can assure you that Marvinst does not resemble anything to do with anarchism. Or are you one of those people who think anarchism is some nihilistic philosophy of just doing whatever you want, screw everyone else? Please read our article on anarchism.
I apologize if I seem abrasive; this just really gets to me. Two in one week! Zazaban (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2009

Did you click the link (I have re-imposed it within the header)? Nevertheless, I would comment that I am sufficiently familiar with Anarchism to know that many adherents reject imposed structures (conformism) and sometimes appear wilfully obtuse in their interactions with others in some situations - which I was referring to in regard to that particular editor. I would say that it pains me say it, being a bleeding heart liberal who acknowledges everyone's right to follow their own lifestyle choices, but I have never known an anarchist with a sense of humour... except perhaps the chaps I once saw at the Free Nelson Mandela concert in Hyde Park standing under a "Federation of Anarchist Movements" banner. Ah, well... Nevermind. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I usually do, but I had somebody claiming that the article on anarchism was factually inaccurate because it did not agree with him, even though everything was sourced and he refused to even read it. Aw well, I've actually made similar jokes in the past myself, I was just caught on a bad day- damn it, I've made an ass of myself, haven't I? :P Zazaban (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't worry about it - anyone who commits enough time and content to this space will fall upon their ass eventually; but if you can acknowledge it and carry on with a rueful smile it will stand you in good stead. Look where that philosophy has got Lar!!

Anyhow, nice to have interacted - hope you are able to add your own interpretations of the wiki method into the melange. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You know...

Re this - I looked at my edit summary after making that edit, and I *knew* someone would call me out on it, considering the topic... Tony Fox (arf!) 22:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion needed

So, y'know that user whose profile makes them look like the fakest faker in Faketown? What do you think is the deal? Keepscases (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am uncertain to which individual or account you are referring to - the most active/recent one that crops up in your contrib history is one that I have not commented upon (that I recall). Can you give me a further hint? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm...I don't want to mention any names. I have not directly interacted with this person. Let's just say that this "relatively new" user has a surprising knowledge of Wikipedia combined with a rather curious collection of userboxes. Keepscases (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not enough for me to go on, I'm afraid. Should the situation change, or your concerns are heightened, or someone else queries the situation, come back to me and I will take a look. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wit

appreciated[23] KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
;~D LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

James Lascelles

He is not royal therefor no royal stub is needed 78.145.252.183 (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

TOTSE two

Howdy LHvU, I'mcoming to you because you initially protected the TOTSE article against IPs posting their new forums in the wake of the old one shutting down. Since the semi-pro lapsed, they've come back. I reverted a few of them and asked them to take it to the talk page, but I don't want to edit war over it. My initial thoughts were that since the information is all unsourced and several different places popped up, we should wait until for some kind of official source before letting the new forums essentially advertise on wikipedia. I thought I'd see what you thought, since the IPs are posting the info again and won't discuss it on the talk page. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any indication that you are aware of as to when there might be "official" news about a successor site? If there is, then I would be open to sprotecting up to such an announcement. In the absence of any statement I would rather sprotect for a few days, and then do so again if the ip activity resumes - and if after a while of sprotect, lapse, cleanup, resprotect then hit the indefinite length option. I shall resprotect to cover the weekend pending receipt of your thoughts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

None that I know of, but I'm not familiar with the original site and only know what I've read. Until there's an official notice of a new board (and that new board is shown to be independently notable), I don't think we should be posting random boards on the page. Is the spin-off of a notable board automatically notable?

Just being rhetorical here, I don't actually know one way or the other. I just know there were several boards that popped up as alternatives as soon as the main site went down, and I don't know if any of them have a notable connection to the original. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Is a spin-off notable? If it is created by the same people for the same purpose, then... perhaps. After sprotecting I went to the article talkpage to request feedback regarding further protection, so you may wish to join in (if there is anything to join) there. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, after the semi-pro expired an IP added the new site [24], which was then stricken (on-wiki) a few hours later [25] and redirected to another site. I deleted both of them and again asked the editors to explain on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See how it goes; if there is no discussion but only revert warring then it can be indefinitely sprotected until folk start talking - it may be worthwhile putting in a invisible message in the contested area saying that non-discussed sites will be reverted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I placed a notice within the lead paragraph. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

totse

there needs to be a list of "successor" sites on totse.com they are bbs.zoklet.net and totse2.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.36.179 (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Too nice?

I was tempted, but I like to give people another shot if they miss their foot the first time. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request, seeking your input.

See User talk:Codechief. He says all the right things, and he can easily be reblocked should he start spamming again. As he is a completely new user, and likely did not understand our polices, would you support an unblock, if I keep an eye on him? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

honeytrap /pot

I've never heard honeytrap are you looking for Honeypot (computing) ? =) –xeno (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a term I understood was used by the police or blackmailers in the use of a seduction person of the opposite (or not, depending on the blackmail/sting) sex to entrap an individual. I thought it came from bear hunting, and the use of real honey to lure out the animal...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, see the first few entries on Honeypot (disambig). Never heard it used as "honeytrap" though, not saying it's not, but I think honeypot is the more common usage. –xeno (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Might be a UK term, as this search indicates... Guess I can set up a redirect! Thanks for taking the time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

true, true. exists at Honey trap. –xeno (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I think the one word term needs to have the same redirect, as a barely notable band may be a bit disappointing to some "researchers". ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a hatnote? Your call. –xeno (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know - this is a band I have not heard of (FWIW) but people didn't seem to recognise my understanding of the term... I think a disambig page for two fairly obscure meanings would be best, but I am also a little perplexed as to how to create a hatnote or a disambig page straight to a redirect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This should work fine: {{this|the band|Honeypot}} , yes? –xeno (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I tested it, and since it clearly worked I added it - I will just nip over to Honeypot and clarify things there. Thanks, again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is already indicated as an alternative... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep I noticed that afterwards but I was keeping quiet to avoid potential embarrassment to myself ;p –xeno (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

68.192.223.254

FYI: This anon user does not appear to be blocked; s/he is continuing to commit vandalism, although it's on his/her own talk page. Specifically, the user has vandalized the block notification and later, it was removed. I recommend more stringent action. This anon user appears to be little more than a vandalism-only account. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked users can almost always edit their "own" userpages - if they want to make an unblock request, etc. If they vandalise/blank it, then they can be stopped but the best option is to ignore it. In a couple of days there might be a different person editing from that address, and there is no point in punishing them for someone elses stupidity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

75.108.73.219

Thought I would "loop" you in on this one...this anon user that you blocked a month ago is back at his ol' vandalism tricks again. Not sure if you want to handle this or let another admin take care of it, but I thought I would keep you informed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 23:46

I dropped a note at the admin noticeboard this was being discussed upon. Let me know when they start up again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your note :) I will keep an eye on his/her contribs in the coming days and if anything starts up, I will let you know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 31, 2009 @ 03:10

May I just say...

... that the "You should start an account at Uncyclopedia" message you recently left here was the greatest thing I've read all day. Majorclanger (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course you may! It wasn't even sarcastic, since the invention and humour of the now deleted article might have a home there - and it would keep them off the WP pages too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hey LessHeard, would you mind a quick restore of User:Grsz11/Review? Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 02:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please note it points to a redlink, but I suppose you can sort that out. I would also comment that I shall be retiring for the night soon, so you may need the services of another sysop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Apparantly I moved the content to User:Grsz11/Review archive, if you wouldn't mind getting that too. Grsz¹¹ 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I ec'ed and missed your comment. Thanks for the help. Grsz¹¹ 02:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I see someone else got it open - you might wish to remove the delete request (unless it has served it's purpose). LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

re User talk:Martin451#You wuz reported to AIV

I apologize for hitting the "report" button on the wrong talk page. It was a well meaning, but still stupid thing to do. I've tried to smooth things over with Martin451 since he obviously was completely blameless. I also apologize for any difficulties this caused for you or other admins. Rest assured that it is not a mistake I will repeat any time soon. Monkey Bounce (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes is what good editors do from time to time - no problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User pretends to be a sock

Hi LHvU. I removed the sock template from User:BobbyCro that the user awarded to himself. There is no User:Andycrogonka. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Sock or not, themz iz blockzed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fadulj

Your block should still be active, but he's back with a new account methinks. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User 124.179.79.34 & Folau111

Hi - You recently blocked User:124.179.79.34 and I just wanted to let you know he:she is now editing as Folau111, an account used in the last few weeks for adding the same & similar nationality edits to rugby league articles. Not sure if you can help or if I need to report this elsewhere. Could you advise me, please? •Florrie•waltz a matilda• 05:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

From a quick look at a random sample, I am not sure this is the same editor - Folau11 appears to concentrate on a British superleague side and there is not the ethnicity issues as with the ip. If I have missed the edits that particularly concern you, it may be best if you can supply me with a diff. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure...

• 1 Folau111 editing the Sydney Roosters.
• 2 User:124.179.79.34 editing the Sydney Roosters.
• 3 Folau111 editing the Wests Tigers.
• 4 User:124.179.79.34 editing the Wests Tigers.
• 5 Folau111 editing Hull Kingston Rovers.
• 6 User:124.179.79.34 editing Hull Kingston Rovers.

In each instance the edits are exactly the same. Cheers, •Florrie•waltz a matilda• 14:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked for a month - this will force them to use their underlying ip to edit, and if that is the same as previously (and they continue to edit war to their preferred version) then I or another admin will be able to apply a longer sanction. Thanks for the diffs; they are the best evidence when requesting admin help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Cheers, •Florrie•waltz a matilda• 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

More pages need protection

Bambifan101's socks have set their eyes on List of The Mighty B! episodes, List of The Mighty B! characters, Talk:The Mighty B!, Hotel for Dogs, Hotel for Dogs (film), Talk:Hotel for Dogs, Talk:Hotel for Dogs (film), Balto (film)', Talk:Balto (film), and Robin Hood (1973 film). All of these pages need indef semi-protection. Elbutler (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I see Protonk has done the honours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It Continues

Sometimes during the day (I just woke up) anon user 75.108.73.219 continued his "can figure out what I am doing" style of editing to multiple television station pages. I wanted to let you know first, I will be reverted posthaste. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 1, 2009 @ 23:33

I reported the anon user to AIV (standard OP) and User:Kralizec! blocked him/her for 3 months. If you want to up that, you are more than welcome....I don't think anyone will dispute it with you. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 2, 2009 @ 00:20

3 months is fine, it is the next step up from a 1 month block - not sure why A.train only blocked for 48 hours in the meantime, but it isn't important - and if it continues after 13 weeks then we can look at a 6 month block. I am happy for a steady escalation of sanctions rather than sticking them on a years time out on the 3rd violation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're not too busy...

There is an escalating issue at Masonic conspiracy theories. It appears to be based on the misconception that one's own ideas trump the requirements and application of WP policies by User:Ukufwakfgr. I note as a telling example that he says he saw a documentary on Freemasonry on The History Channel and that the Masons on the program were "less than truthful". That indicates to me a preconceived notion. Every attempt to collaborate with this editor has been met with straw man arguments, as well as some accusations of which an editor with an apparent three-day history should be unaware. I think you resolve things fairly, so I would request some assistance if you are so inclined. MSJapan (talk) 03:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That was a lot of reading... I'm not sure what the problem is - one that needs admin assistance. It appears that you and Blueboar are answering the "concerns" raised and have noted the gamesmanship employed, if Ukufwakfgr starts violating policies and disregarding warnings then I can drop by if required then. Oh, and the important standard to quote is "consensus" - being bold does not deprecate that requirement, hence the endgame of discuss (i.e. consensus) follows Bold/Revert in WP:BRD. Let me know if there is anything specific you would request of me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Godigital block evading

Hi LessHeard vanU. User:Godigital, whome you blocked for disruptive editing (reverting Romeo Miller and Master P to his preferred version) is doing it again as his IP (Special:Contributions/66.92.43.144). Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 22:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Stomped. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice one! :D John Sloan (view / chat) 01:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Toes

Sorry if I inadvertently stepped on your toes with the Kinomakoto (talk · contribs) block! Had I seen your AIV comment, I would have happily waited for a subject matter expert to weigh in regarding the edits in question. Sorry! --Kralizec! (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, if they continue after the block expires then they will get increasing sanctions whether or not the reviewer considers that it is all hoaxes or not - and if they don't continue (and even better, make useful contributions) then the short block has served its purpose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Noticeboards and Palin

I stand behind every action I take, a message you seem to not have taken from my post at WP:AN/I. Which is fairly ironic given that it was the central point of the rant. Editors and admins are judged by the actions they take: their contribution history and their logs.

I stand by my actions with regard to the Sarah Palin article. How do I know it was the Right Thing to do? 'cause smart people told me so. Not (just) on IRC, but at the Arbitration case as well. And while consensus is important on a collaborative project like this, so is doing the right thing and sticking to the principles of the site.

Do I have a problem with transparency? Not at all. In fact I regularly argue for as much of it as possible (especially with regard to page histories and logs). The Arbitration Committee has both private mailing lists and a private wiki. Both of these things reduce transparency, but by your logic, we should be arguing against the use of both. Because of somebody misuses a medium of communication, obviously it's the medium's fault.

As a final note, it has the shortcut WP:DRAMA for a reason. So when you call others "drama mongers," remember that you do so with over 1300 edits to that page, more edits to it by you than any other page in the Wikipedia: namespace. Don't like drama? Don't involve yourself with it. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Intransigence is not generally considered a positive attribute, and it is even less appealing when it comes with a dose of arrogance - and while IRC does have voices speaking there whose opinions I respect and even sometimes share there are those there I emphatically do not, and yet have no recourse against because of a lack of accountability for what was said. I would also strongly argue that there is no more better informed opinion on the IRC channels than might be found on the Wiki space, and anyone who believes that IRC offers more profound consideration than may be found elsewhere has my disdain (and continued contempt when they feel that "per IRC discussion" is sufficient commentary when reversing on-Wiki consensus). Per the Sarah Palin instance, it was wrong and especially when one is convinced one is "Right" it needs to be measured against the consensus it is wrong and put aside; Admins are the instruments of consensus, not its judges.

I do argue for greater transparency of ArbCom, and consider that the private wiki to be a necessary evil that should be utilised as sparingly as possible and as much detail provided after the event as can be achieved without infringing upon its purpose - and again with the private mailing list I accept that the purpose outweighs the drawbacks - and have been consistent in that regard with my dealings with ArbCom.

Oh, yes, I am a regular at the AN boards and frequently comment at various ArbComs to which I am not a party - so much so that my article space contributions are a decreasing percentage of my contributions, but I would hope that a review of my interactions indicate that I am a responder rather than an instigator of various topics and while possibly some of my comments have not served to diminish the temperature that it would be in areas where opinion is already divided (of course, others may take a different view of my contributions there - but I can only speak of my intent). If I get involved in drama, previously or presently, it is not likely to be of my own instigation and I certainly won't be withdrawing from it now or in the future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

of Carnatic Music

Admins are the instruments of consensus, not its judges. Do you practice this really!!!???. In the case of Naadapriya related to Carnatic Music' you hastily acted as a judge to support your close acquaintance user 'Ncm' I am not him but share system with him. Do some soul searching whether you acted on your own or to help out a buddy. Your action has led to a disastrous effect on the article living control to one user. Your deliberate ad-hoc biased support to 'Ncm' has discouraged many senior editors from actively editing the article which is in a bad shape under the control by one language group. See if you can undo the damage. By a Vagabond from a Multi-User System76.212.3.119 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I have not protected the article, even though it has been protected many times by different admins, and I have not blocked Srkris (talk · contribs) who has also been blocked by many differing admins for edit warring involving Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) (who, by remaining unblocked in this matter either edits to consensus or is extremely popular with a huge number of the admin community) or Sarvagnya (talk · contribs) although I did block Naadapriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours - the shortest block on that account, which is now indef blocked for edit warring - back in September. Is this the account you refer to or is it even further back, since it appears from my block comment that this was the result of an ANI discussion; which means I was prompted by consensus, as I averred above. Please let me know to which account you refer, since it appears that several have edit warred against the consensus that Ncmvocalist appears to edit to - although it does not necessarily mean that there is more than one editor utilising new accounts as the old ones are blocked. It seems that the matter weighs more heavily upon your mind than it does mine, since I have had to review the article thoroughly to September last year to find my most recent if not only intervention. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I note the following message was left on my userpage

  I do not believe in blocking and recalling blah blah just for the the sake doing so. However I have seen your hasty action on 'Naadapriya' related to 'Carnatic Music'. I am not him but share system with him. Do some soul searching whether you acted on your own or to help out a buddy. Your action has led to a disastrous effect on the article living a monopoly to one user. Your deliberate biased support to 'Ncm' has discouraged many like me to actively edit the article which is in a bad shape under the control by one language group. By a Vagabond from a Multi-User System.76.212.2.204 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  and it does appear that you refer to the September sanction. As mentioned, I acted in accordance to a conclusion to a discussion (although I do not recall the basis of the consensus) so it would be inaccurate to either claim it to be hasty or done on the behest of one person. It further seems that you are willing, or you condone it of someone with whom you "share a system" only, to violate policy in pursuance of your own POV rather than test it against the arguments of others to attempt to change consensus, so your accusations of my improper use of the tools - which I refute - ring rather hollow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) (who, by remaining unblocked in this matter either edits to consensus or is extremely popular with a huge number of the admin community)

Almost all Sr. editors have quit in frustration. There is no consensus issue at all in the article

For sure he/she appears to be popular among some (mostly with same language background) and others buddy Admins like you.

As I understand Wikipedia is not against the use of shared system. Many of us use public libraries. However no one is using the shared system to solicit support for their views. Never gang-up on other editors like so-called community-ban gangs that has successfully executed 'hyenas attack on lone cub'

Your hasty (without reading the comments and ignoring the correct action by another Admin) action of unjustified block to support your close acquaintance Ncm POV has made a major negative impact on the article. Almost all 'bold' editors have either quit or forced to quit. Your block is cited often to force an editor out. Now the article is an orphan under the control of a specific language based group. After your wrong action only Ncm has managed to make unilaterally 99.999% edits to the article. It does not speak well about an important wikipedia article. Though it may not be practical to undo all wrong things happened since then, as a responsible Admin one should revisit and see if any correction can be made.76.212.3.119 (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationalities again

Hi - edits claiming nationality have been appearing yet again over the last few days under another ip 121.218.10.131. Some diffs...

• [26] At Wests Tigers
• [27] At Hull Kingston Rovers
• [28] At South Sydney Rabbitohs

• Folau111's contributions
• 124.179.79.34's contributions
• 121.218.10.131's contributions

They are also editing individual player articles to insert their unreferenced claims, such as this [29]. Not sure what they are doing - rifling through player's family trees' for references to origins of great-grannies?

If they keep popping up with a new ip I expect there isn't too much you can do, but any assistance would be appreciated.  florrie  01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)