User talk:LessHeard vanU

A very big thankyou

Thankyou for your support in this thread. I rather felt I was under attack there for quite a simple issue. Viridae^Talk 23:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Che

Perhaps you would like to mediate, or if not, make the changes you proposed; either one would be acceptable to me. Thank you in advance for your contributions. Gtadoc 19:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, and I will ask the person you mentioned (looking through the long history now...) as I am looking for a 3rd party to rewrite it. Best Gtadoc 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way (yeah, I probably should've created a new header for this question, but I'm lazy), I seem to recall seeing a tag that one can add to article talk pages, to request a broader outside opinion on a subject. But, for the life of me, I can't remember what that tag was... do you?

Good call, I believe you were thinking of this {Wider attention} Gtadoc 21:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Tim Osman and User:NYScholar

I don't think you need to unblock or reduce the block on User:Tim Osman - he clearly violated 3RR and has been incivil. I do think that fairness demands a 3RR block on User:NYScholar, and a warning about calling content disputed "vandalism" and "BLP violations", neither of which applied to Osman's edits to Joseph C. Wilson. I've filed a report at WP:AN3. Argyriou (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked for 48 hours, same as Tim Osman. Perhaps they can now find something they agree on - the actions of a certain admin! ;~] LessHeard vanU 21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

They're at it again... Argyriou (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

the Godfather of the Beatles article

Can I have your opinion, as the Godfather of the Beatles article, regarding my query (Tin Pan Alley) on the Beatles talk page. This contextually incorrect (to me, anyway) reference is bland, and is not beyond our imagination to replace with something more meaningful. It wouldn’t be difficult to avoid its use as the Beatles touched upon many musical styles (i.e. experimenting with comedy and avant-garde to their more obvious exploring of pop and rock). Speaking of which, it also wouldn’t hurt (in my ever so humble) to expand this section. MacDonald would be one good source for this (introduction: Rev. in the Head) and there are many others. What do you think?--Patthedog 18:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay... I'll pop over just after I find some cotton wool to stuff into my cheeks. LessHeard vanU 19:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Good Catch

My, that was embaresing. That you for pointing that out to me, I would have missed it otherwise :-)

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that LessHeard vanU has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page Wikipedia:Request for adminship/TomStar81 2‎, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 20:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry to much about missing the award the first time around. This is probably the easiest wikipedia award anyone can get, but that doesn't make it any important :) TomStar81 (Talk) 04:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Genre Bollocks Ali

Sincere apologies. It was very unfair of me to do that, but it certainly wasn’t meant to be personal. I was getting a bit frustrated - silly really, over such a small thing (why does that have a familiar ring?) - and so I think I'd just better leave it. Thanks anyway for your response. Cheers, --Patthedog 12:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

WTF its Eamon (talk · contribs)

I see you blocked the above user for abuse of editing privilages, yet I'm a little confused, what editing privilages have been abused? He has a username that is against policy, that's it. We use {{UsernameBlocked}} for these users, not {{uw-block3}}. Also, we don't block account creation like you have done. Please can you sort this out ASAP? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Accidental block on my account

Thanks for the sincere note of apology. I did get caught by the block, but was relieved to see that it was removed quickly. No harm done. The block log tells an unambiguous story, and I suppose the history will add some "character" to my wikiprofile. :-) --orlady 02:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Carlosmac

I did the talk-to-user redirect because I've seen that done before on other indef blocked users. I undid the redireect for you too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 18:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

When you have a redirect page, the way to access the Redirect is as follows:

Let's say page "X" redirects to page "Y". If you type in "X", it'll give you "Y" with a notice that says "Redirected from X". Where it says "Redirected from X", click on whatever "X" is and that'll take you to the redirect and allow you to edit it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 19:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Herrscythe

Re your message: Thanks. I left it for the reporting editor and just in case the article got recreated. Since it hasn't I removed the report. -- Gogo Dodo 20:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Iupuicees

Just want to doublecheck that my note about the user at AIV was read. The name seemed similar to the previous account thus I brought up my concern. I want to make sure I didn't make a leap of bad faith here. And as per your message at the top, you may reply on my talk page if you so desire. :) -WarthogDemon 21:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) Also wondering, should the other account be blocked as well? So far User:Cees iupui has gotten is along the lines of a final warning, not a block. -WarthogDemon

No edits since final warning. If you see anything, let me know. LessHeard vanU 21:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Iupuicees

You blocked User:Iupuicees indefinitely for persistent copyright infringement. He had created two articles which were tagged for speedy deletion as copyvios. One of these (Lilly Arbor Project), IMO was and is not a copyvio. It cites and relies on a single source, but does not copy any sentences from that source. I have removed the speedy tag. The other relies on a different source/web site from the same entity, but does copy multiple sentences, although they are rearranged and edited. The user alleges, on Talk:Lilly Arbor Project, that he has permission to post from that source on Wikipedia. While this editor obviously needs to be educated, in view of these facts, i think an indef block is not warranted. I ask that you consider unblocking. DES ^(talk) 05:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I will look into the edits and deleted edits of User:Cees iupui and act as the merits seem to warrant. I note that in this edit you left a msg on Cees iupui's talk page saying that he was indef blocked, but no block appears in the block log. This seems odd. DES ^(talk) 14:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the edits of each, i am fairly well convinced that User:Iupuicees and User:Cees iupui are the same person. In addition to the close similarity in username, subject, and tendency to post content copied from web sites, there is an identical not quite correct use of {{cite web}}.

I think that it is probable that this person intended to contribute positively to the project. I think it is at least plausible that this person at least believes that s/he has permission from the organization whose websites s/he has been copying from to do this. I suspect that this permission, if it exists, does not constitute a full release under a free license, and even if it does, Wikipedia needs to be properly notified of such release.

Therefore, I intend to take the following actions:

1. Remove the block message from the talk page of User:Cees iupui, since that user is not actually blocked, according to the block log
2. leave a message on the talk page of User:Cees iupui. In that message i will:
   1. explain in detail Wikipedia's copyright policies;
   2. explain what we would need to demonstrate permission to copy content;
   3. explain why even if a free release has been granted, it is better to rewrite content;
   4. explain why multiple user accounts are normally a bad idea, and ask that he select one or the other, or a new, third account (since both these user names are at least technically prohibited as matching the name of an organization);
   5. Ask that s/he communicate with me, with an undertaking to edit properly in these respects in future, and indicating which single username will be used for the purpose, and warning that further apparently copyvio edits will lead to a block;
3. I will place a copy of the same msg on the talk page of User:Iupuicees
4. I will not unblock User:Iupuicees unless I receive an statement that the user wishes to use that user name henceforth, understands the copyright issues, and undertakes to edit in a proper manner. If I do get such a msg, i will unblock.

I hope you do not object to any of the above. Thanks for your earlier response to me. DES ^(talk) 14:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

See my msg here and here. DES ^(talk) 16:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will contact you if I can use assitance, or a second opnion. I also emailed the user (under each name) to alert him or her of my msg on wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 16:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked this user, after discusson on his talk page, pendign the creation of a new username. Old names will redirect or vanish after new name is registerd. I will inform you of the new name when I know what the user has chosen. DES ^(talk) 00:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Thanks for the comments on my failed RfA. Honestly, I thought that was what consensus was, but I wasn't sure, so I second-guessed myself and ended up with pie on my face. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 16:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoops!

That shows you how stupid I am - I didn't look at the dates! Oh deary me, I must stop drinking Zipfer beer... :) --andreasegde 17:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:ChaosSorcerer91

I would consider constantly reasserting dubious facts into articles without discussion or consensus a form of vandalism, especially since he has been warned on this matter. Along with other stuff like this seriously make me question his actions. Sasquatch t|c 20:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

new subject

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for the compliment ;) ACBestMy ContributionsAutograph Book 20:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretties for you...

The Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence (Potato Salad of Congenitality cluster, 1st. Class) In Panis, Veritas.

I hereby award you, with all due solemnity (which is to say not very much at all) this highly prestigious and edible award "The Sandwich of Exceptional Excellence". I award this to the editors who do good work in all the various places I bump into them, and also to editors who look a little bit hungry. Wear it with pride, noble wiki-warrior! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich 23:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

I thought I could pass, but it's all illuminated now. Thanks! Laleena^{talk to me contributions to Wikipedia} 12:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Since this involves ignoring last weeks ANI resolution, I'm informing the editors who were involved. I thought you'd be interested. Miss Mondegreen talk  14:20, July 30 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, LessHeard vanU, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy _U^CP 04:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Nilsson23

Thanks for the block. Darrenhusted 12:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Mrcineman

Actually I did fill it in, but it showed up like that any way. Thanks for the advice though! Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 21:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?

at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jade_Knight you wrote: 21:27, 31 July 2007 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) (I removed a report on your "BLP vandalism" at AIV) (undo)

Are you saying you deleted a report at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AIV about a violation of wp:BLP? --And before it was seen and acted on by an administrator? Please reply at my Talk Page. 69.154.18.251 21:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Two entries of below are copied from Jade Knight's talk page, in case you don't see this right away (I forgot to sign in before posting as User:69.154.18.251. I'm not doing "sock puppetry," I'm trying to keep the specific wp:BLP from being too closely associated with any one username. This is a fiasco, and you can more easily help things by becoming more thoroughly acquainted with its origin. Thanks. Piledoggie 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed a report on your "BLP vandalism" at AIV

Please see [this] which was posted by User:Doggiepile, who has placed a warning at the top of your talkpage. My brief review of your contribs, talkpage, etc. indicated that you are in discussion with this editor so I shall leave it up to you how you wish to proceed. I will, however, be notifying Doggiepile of my actions. LessHeard vanU 21:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's User:piledoggie, but your mistake is understandable. Your 'brief review' was too brief...I am not in constructive discussion with user:Jade Knight, please check my userpage and also today's entries at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Church_of_Christ_%28Temple_Lot%29 for a much better idea of what is going on. Thanks! And please re-instate my vandalism/BLP violation report. Piledoggie 21:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I shall not be taking any further action on this matter until I get a response from Jade Knight (who I hope is able to reply to the appropriate page and under only the one username). Goodnight. LessHeard vanU 22:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Piledoggie

You are correct in your assessment. Piledoggie is the same as User:69.154.18.251, as well as users 69.152.175.114 (recently blocked for vandalism) and user 69.149.223.55. He is using WP:BLP as a green light to remove sources from a Wikipedia article that he happens to dislike, and insists that it would be a violation of WP:BLP to discuss whether or not these sources would be appropriate or not for the article. The Jade Knight 22:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And just an FYI: He's already been issued an ODRS for reporting this, and it has since been dismissed. He tried to drag User:OwenX into this, as well. The Jade Knight 22:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I didn't know an ODRS was dismissed, because none was formally presented to me. My rough understanding was that there would be seven days for resolution of dispute, during which time the offending article was to be edit-protected. The protection was removed after 24 hours, and Jade Knight continued his violation of BLP policy. If you check my talk pages, you will see I was never formally issued "an ODRS for reporting this." Piledoggie 00:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page

I removed a report on your "BLP vandalism" at AIV

Please see [this] which was posted by User:Doggiepile, who has placed a warning at the top of your talkpage. My brief review of your contribs, talkpage, etc. indicated that you are in discussion with this editor so I shall leave it up to you how you wish to proceed. I will, however, be notifying Doggiepile of my actions. LessHeard vanU 21:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My actions above were questioned by User talk:69.154.18.251, who I note i) you have also been discussing BLP matters with, ii) had recently come off a 3RR block, and iii) uses the term "Sir" as a form of address in the same way Piledoggie does. I have asked them whether I ought to request Checkuser or go to WP:SSP regarding the similarities. It seems that one was editing whilst the other was blocked. Again, I will leave this up to you on how you wish to proceed but I will let you know of any response to my query. LessHeard vanU 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

if you would examine the controversy at the wikipedia article in question, you will see that piledoggie has also posted under three other anonymous IP's (but none others), and not because of "sock puppetry," but because of the BLP violation and the mass confusion generated in and by Jade Knight has created the necessity for me to post anonymously. But also when I forget to log in. Piledoggie 22:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's User:piledoggie, but your mistake is understandable. Your 'brief review' was too brief...I am not in constructive discussion with user:Jade Knight, please check my userpage and also today's entries at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Church_of_Christ_%28Temple_Lot%29 for a much better idea of what is going on. Thanks! And please re-instate my vandalism/BLP violation report. Piledoggie 21:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are talking to me? No, I will not re-instate the AIV report; it was in the wrong place (much like this response!) - go to the BLP Noticeboard if you insist, as advised. LessHeard vanU 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

after further discussion with Jade Knight and some contemplation, I realize that you are correct: going to the BLP Noticeboard is what I should do. Piledoggie 05:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudemans RFA withdrawn

Hey, I've decided to regretfully withdrawal my RFA. Based on the numbers I don't believe it would have ever been successful. It seemed to have gotten off to a bad start and then went down hill from there. It's very unfortunate that it turned out the way it did however I do appreciate your participation. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Piledoggie (2)

Piledoggie seems to have chosen to abandon the diplomatic route. He/she posted complaints about me on the WP:BLP noticeboard without notifying me/posting a notice on the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) article (and which the noticeboard has determined were not valid BLP complaints), and I have absolutely no idea what this is about. Have you noticed anything in my conduct which constitutes harassment? The Jade Knight 09:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(It may be worth noting that Piledoggie has also made legal threats over at the WP:BLP noticeboard). The Jade Knight 10:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Actually, I didn't notice he had an ONLY warning. midunderstanding. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 23:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking that Vandal!

Thanks for blocking User:TheEmperorWarlock!

IamMarkBlake 22:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

AIV Case /Fashion Model Directory / The ip case you asked me to look at

I think the FMD is supposed to be the fashion industry version of IMDB - which is most certainly not a reliable source. Having protected the page, I felt that BLP came into play because incorrectly recording ethnicity in a living person's bio is unacceptable. I couldn't find any other reliable sources on a quick google search so reverted back to the version that did not have this information. Since then the ip/new editor has queried this on my talk page and since protection policy prohibits protecting to a preferred version, I have put it up on ANI [1] for review. I thought you would want to be aware. Cheers Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 02:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

IP block

Apologies, I didn't realise that "please log in to edit" thing was also a block, and referred to the final warning above that. I'll be mindful of that in future! Liverpool Scouse 21:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Re IP reported at AIV

Hi. I understand that you do not like to block IP addresses. If they continue I will request semi-protection. Thanks --The-G-Unit-Boss 12:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, The reason I reported him/her is because they continually added info whicih was weasel words but used the companie sown website as a source. I realised afterwards that their recent edits used different sources. Thanks for the help --The-G-Unit-Boss 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Lonewolf BC

By all means, no; I'd have no issue with that at all. One of the key problems I have with this whole affair is a dearth of communication from him. Having someone else ask him for an explanation is exactly one of the things I'd like to see happen. --G2bambino 13:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --G2bambino 13:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit Wars

I've noticed over the weeks, that 'edit warring' editors (particular at 'commonwealth' related articles), 'tend to report each other for 3RR breachings. Is this a good idea? Though it's permittable, I think it would be better to invite 'Administrators' to review an article & let Administrators decide who has breached 3RR. Having 'edit disputers' reporting each other, seems to be an attempt to 'get the last laugh'. What do you think. GoodDay 18:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's cool; thanks for responding. GoodDay 19:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. And also thank you for keeping the tally updated - it's a little thing, but it really meant a lot to my obsessive-compulsive side :) Lyrl^Talk _C 00:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fran14

I was about to add User:76.192.216.52, another sockpuppet of User:Dingbat2007 to the mix, which is also commiting vandalism, the same that User:Fran14 was. I haven't warned the user yet, as I was just going to add it to the WP:AIV board. I will though, warn the user now. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have Warn4'ed the user and reverted all vandalism. Am checking Recent Changes for further vandalism on other IPs. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem :) You have a good sleep. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 21:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

IP 24.141.150.255

Regarding the block recently placed on this IP address: yesterday, I picked up that this IP was making a sequence of edits, changing the categories on articles. In particular, in each edit, they were removing Category:Jewish American actors, and replacing it with Category:American Jews and Category:Jewish actors. However, when I went to check the first category, I noticed a CFD template had been placed on it; checking the relevant discussion, it turned out it had been decided to delete Category:Jewish American actors (as the red link will attest).

So, in replacing a soon to be deleted category with two that covered the same area, it seems to me that the IP was likely acting in good faith, and not trying to vandalise the articles. (Though their efforts weren't strictly necessary, given that a bot was soon set to remove the category from all those articles.)

Anyhow, that's my two pence. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 21:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. If they contest the block on that basis I will concur with an unblock; however it seems a strange change of cat, usually a CfD will be because there is a duplicate cat (usually just a change of sequence). If the cat is being changed to defeat the purpose of the deletion then it is still (very much) vandalism. Anyhow, I'm off to bed shortly so someone else can wrassle it. LessHeard vanU 21:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, its not a duplicate cat - therefore the ip is attempting to keep the Jewish identity within the article categories. Since they are giving no reason I am inclined to believe it is vandalism. Again, it depends on what the unblock reason given is. LessHeard vanU 21:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tmayes1999

Thanks for taking a look at it. Yes, he seems to have both gone quiet and had started to modify the problem behavior before he did. I suspect his next return to activity will still be frustrating for those of us around him, but I don't see any justification to consider blocking at this time. Georgewilliamherbert 21:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

AN

Okay, thanks. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

IPs

We can look up IPs of edits? When did this happen? Or do you mean that we can request them from checkuser? Cool Hand Luke 01:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yeah, I would likewise only do that if they had earned a legitimate block. Cool Hand Luke 18:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Atraxus

Hi there. Regarding User:Atraxus. You originally removed him from WP:AIV, suggesting he was already blocked. You then added a template to his page to tell him he was blocked. However, it seems that he is not blocked, unless I am missing something big here. See block log, and many contributions since you added the template, such as these: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Like I say, if I'm missing something really big here, or if the way blocks work has changed, to allow blocked users to edit other user's talk pages, then please forgive me for reverting your change to AIV. But otherwise, I think Atraxus isn't actually blocked. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a lot of fuss about nothing. Atraxus 00:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh

This cracked me up[7]. Okay...so I have a weird sense of humour.... Risker 23:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup"etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:11 20 August 2007 (GMT).

Wikipedia: Young users

Hi - I'm contacting you because I haven't had time to work on Wikipedia:Young users - too much other wikistuff going on. Also, other than you and me, there seemed to be no interest, so I'm thinking maybe it would be best to delete that page.

I didn't add a deletion request to it, because you had entered comments there too, so I wanted to check with you first to see if you want to keep it going or not.

In addition to the lack of interest from adult editors in that topic, I also had an experience lately with a young user who did not self-identify, but based on behavior, he seemed to be young (though he's also Japanese so the language difficulty made it hard to tell). He did revert-warring on page moves and caused all sorts of hassles. I think when he saw his changes reverted by more than one person, he got frustrated and backed off, though I assume he'll be back again and it will resume. (I sure hope not).

I'm rambling,... the point is, I have the feeling that even if we wrote the essay, most young users wouldn't be interested. The ones that would be interested will probably be the same ones that have parental guidance anyway, so... maybe the essay is just not needed.

If you want to keep it going, that's OK with me. But if you agree it's not needed, you're welcome to delete the page and the talk page and archive.

It seemed like a good idea at the time, but... maybe not. What do you think? (reply here) --Parsifal _Hello 09:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a good idea, the age demographic of users is expanding and thus more younger contributors will appear on WP. I suggest that you move the essay to a sub-page of your talkpage, and when (not if) it becomes relevant again it can be reintroduced. Also, if you find the time, you might edit it - then if you give me the link to it then I can add any comments, if you think it might help. I believe that it should not be deleted, in any event. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 12:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've moved it to my userspace along with the two talk pages. It's not an essay yet though, but I'll develop it over time and when I have something worth a look I'll let you know and you'd be welcome to add to it.

For now, after I moved it, the Wikipedia-space pages had redirects, so I blanked them. But I don't know of a deletion-request template for that space. I could only find templates for user-page deletions, not for Wikipedia-space. It seems that needs an admin to do it. Would you delete those empty pages so they don't direct to my userspace? Here are the links:

Wikipedia:Young users

Wikipedia talk:Young users

Wikipedia talk:Young users/Archive 1

If there's a different procedure for this, please let me know.

Thanks for your support of the idea; I'll let you know when I have something for you to review. --Parsifal _Hello 06:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I only deleted the Archive, the essay page and talkpage were already deleted. I look forward to contributing when the situation changes (again). LessHeard vanU 12:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... When I have a rough draft I'll drop you a note. --Parsifal _Hello 17:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Spammer block - Thanks

Ref [8]: I had addicentally hit the Save page button in stead of the Show preview. I assumed that my first erroneous entry was removed by a bot, so I re-submitted the corrected request. But perhaps by then you already had taken action. Cheers, DVdm 14:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Joseph A. Montione

This page was created by User:Jam96 and has not yet moved it to his userspace after repeated requests. He's also added the page to the Wikipedia administrators category. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks. GlassCobra 11:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have commented at their talkpage that I will be deleting it unless moved quickly, and requested that the article be removed from the Admin Cat (I don't edit categories). I will watch the article, but I believe it a vanity piece and doubt the editor is interested in contributing further. LessHeard vanU 12:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more a matter of ignorance on how to move pages or where certain information does and does not belong than any willful detraction from the encyclopedia itself. Still, thanks for keeping an eye on it. GlassCobra 12:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: user account blocked

Ah I see, I thought it was a very sophisticated username policey violation, but I suspect it was actually someone trying to do a WP:POINT rather than trying to prevent one. My bad, but same result right? Or do you want it to be unblocked so you can do something with it? SGGH ^speak! 14:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff, see you around SGGH ^speak! 15:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Randomkid17

Thanks for blocking User:Randomkid17. This user had trolled on my talk page. NHRHS2010 ^Talk 23:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

for catching my typos, despite living here so long I still slip up too frequently for my comfort. Italia^vivi 21:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Croatophobia

I am frustrated !! Now I have seen that my article Croatophobia has been deleted. Reason for deleting is that article with that name has been deleted on 23 December 2006. This has been new article with name of deleted. Sorry but wikipedia is POV if she is allowing article which explain word Serbophobia and not allowing article which explain word Croatophobia. Can you be good and return article Croatophobia or delete article Serbophobia ?? My article has been with 5 internet sources which nobody can question (BBC, Harvard, Albert Einstein) and it has been deleted ???

Because of 3RR rule for me is not possible to revert deleting of picture more of 3 times in 24 hours. My solution is that after 3 revert I put another picture. This other picture is what I have been writing :)) Rjecina 22:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at it. I note that the original article was redirected to a similarly named article (Anti Croat Sentiment) which did not survive an AfD. Your article appears to have been speedy deleted as a recreation of the first article. I suggest you speak to the person who deleted the article (likely just an admin function rather than hostility), Sasquatch), for their reasons, and request a copy be placed on your userspace so you might try to work it up to an acceptable standard.

As for reverting, if the picture had consensus then any reverting is vandalism and 3RR doesn't apply. If there was no consensus then replacing it with another also without consensus is not permissable, and leaves you open to accusations of both 3RR - since you are reverting the deleting of an image, it doesn't have to be the same one - and vandalism. It is best to try to get consensus, difficult as that may be! LessHeard vanU 22:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

About picture there we are having compromise from 19 August, but you know how hot headed nationalist come and start thinking that they are right (and do look agreements on discussion page)--Rjecina 22:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, if you have consensus/compromise for having the picture then reverting the deletion does not attract 3RR (and you can report those removing it). For myself, I do not partipate in nationalist issues... lucky for me! LessHeard vanU 22:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on situation with Wikipediatrix

Thanks for your suggestions. I agree with keeping things in a formal tone, however, the same must also apply to wikipediatrix. As far as what articles or talk pages I participate on, that is my business and shall continue to do so as I see fit. Best regards,--Fahrenheit451 13:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Another matter, I don't think that this response [9] was necessary. I suggest you consult with admin User:David Gerard for some tips on how this certain group of editors operates. There is a considerable amount of provocation going on.--Fahrenheit451 14:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Following your previous comment, I would suggest that it is entirely my business on how I conduct my role as an admin, and act as I see fit. Provocation is no excuse for harassing another editor over a range of topics (which is how I read it, rather than the "stalking" complained of) through the use of inappropriate language. If you have a complaint against a group, or an individual, or an admin (such as me) then take it to the relevant venue. Do not, however, make the mistake in believing that you have any right to reply in kind. LessHeard vanU 19:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not state "Provocation is no excuse for harassing another editor over a range of topics", you did. Perhaps you are putting something there that is not. --Fahrenheit451 22:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Double Duh; My use of the term provocation is in the comment immediately above yours (derived from your allegations of concerted biased editing of Scientology sympathetic editors) and... your comment lead me to your talkpage where I noted you being advised not to "poke" wikipediatrix and not use abbreviations of her username - all of which I had noted as part of my first and final warning to you. I am now considering my actions. LessHeard vanU 08:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Sandpiper7

Hello. You blocked that user for spamming links to a website. He argues that the links were useful and not spam. I am inclined to agree. http://www.poetryarchive.org says it is "a not-for-profit organisation with charitable status", and the poetry readings it provides are encyclopedically valuable content. Would you like to comment on the user's unblock request? Sandstein 14:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:24.46.131.224

Hello. Many thanks for your action regarding the above user, who was harassing me by edit-warring on my talk page. I am very grateful to you. --Stephen Burnett 17:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

good show

First time I've seen a 15 minute "time-out" since my kids were in kindergarten. I love it. Tvoz |talk 16:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

But on the substance: I don't think anyone would disagree that the Pang stuff should be sourced, just like everything should be sourced - but my question is whether fact tags are enough or if this is so contentious that it's legit for BLP to be invoked and the section removed. Seems to be a difference of opinion on that. But I see no reason to have elevated it to a main section - it belongs in "personal life" if anywhere, as it has been for ages, I think. The hothead factor over there is pretty amazing. Tvoz |talk 17:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm a tad stunned over the block, whether it be 15 minutes or 15 years - it wasn't warranted. I was the only there following the rules. Please tell me precisely where I was doing anything but enforcing wiki policy. The dudes there wanted to include something without citation, and when I warned and then removed uncited (and disparaging) material from the article, they suggested I go back to the Harry Potter articles, and leave it to the experts. If that isn't an ownership issue, please point out one that is. Their response posts were extraordinarily uncivil personal attacks, and they would revert any changes I made in the article whatsoever, including spelling changes, replacement of free images with non-fair use images, and simple section header capitalisation.

I did nothing wrong, save for get a little hot under the collar over over the pointed refusal to follow wiki policy. It's a BLP article, if for no other reason than thealmost entirely uncited info included in the article regarding the Lost Weekend affects two living persons who have articles within BLP: Yoko Ono and May Pang. The content of the proposed Lost Weekend section constitutes a set of extraordinary claims, and those requires extraordinary citation, as per wiki policy. To allow it to stay is to invite a lawsuit.

I request that the block be removed (even though it's duration began and ended whilst I was offline), as I was enforcing explicit wikipedia policy, and your block puts my actions on par with those of someone for whom the policies are to be ignored. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your intention but not your execution. I was enforcing policy, whereas the other user was enforcing personal viewpoint. My edits protected and strengthened the article, where as the other editor's only delayed the inevitable edit. I think I hold the higher moral ground. I would still like it reversed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

On another note, you might want to watchlist the May Pang article too, as the same issues exist there. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Do you remember me and my favorite vandal ? Now he has started new actions. Deleting picture from article Chetniks because picture is "copyrighted" and puting tag copyrighted on picture. This is link for picture on internet [10]. If you agree that copyright of picture is OK can you please create protection against new user and user without name for this picture ?? --Rjecina 17:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for user page mistake.... --Rjecina 20:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Poor user:Koppany is under vandal attack on talk page. It is bad that you do not understand Serbian. You or somebody who understand what is writen will need to block user:195.252.126.225 Words are:"No gembeš (gembeš is maybe bad word for Hungarians ??)....part of our job is teaching gembeš....all gembeš need to know Serbian anthem...we have teached gembeš which are more bad of you but they know now Serbian anthem. There is hope for you " Rjecina 17:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello. Thanks for your help against user:195.252.126.225 vandalism. Have a nice day. --Koppany 17:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Userpage edits

You're welcome. Just sorry I put it back in the wrong place first time round. Cheers. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 05:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jfol2258

Thanks for blocking him. You are more patient than I am with this user, it appears, but that's probably a good thing in an administrator :-) Reply at my talkpage, please, if at all. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

re James Beckford vandalism

I have blocked the ip reported to AIV for 3 hours only. I am not convinced that the edits were blatant vandalism, but the editor was edit warring without discussing the changes. I suggested, in my block notice, that they discuss the proposed changes at the article talkpage when the block expires. For the record, and I do not mean to sound condescending here, I do not think the text you have replaced the vandalism with is of the best quality. If the ip does open a discussion I believe that you could join in to get a good resolution to the wording. LessHeard vanU 12:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Taking another look, this specific article isn't POV, but if you look at the article's history, and other edits he's made, he has been POV pushing from tons and tons of IP's, and occasionally has been trolling on User talk:AngelOfSadness. Three hours is fine, though -- he's already moved on to another ip. Gscshoyru 12:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

69.48.16.210

1 year for a school IP doesnt seem great to me. --Dweller

Hi. Appreciate your response. I think it's way too harsh for a school. I think the jump from 1 month to 6 was done too swiftly and from 6 to 12 on the first recurrence of a batch of vandalism just seems OTT. Your call. Hope you don't mind me gently criticising! --Dweller 12:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Very gracious of you. Of course you may. I'm probably a lenient blocker generally, but I'm very cautious with school addresses, because the vandal using the IP at 3.15pm local time will be replaced by the good kid at 3.45. While we definitely should block school addresses for flagrant and massive vandalism, this one just seemed a little hard. --Dweller 13:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Haredim and Zionism

Hi LessHeard. I've protected this page for three days to stop the edit warring (or at least slow it down). I'm not sure why you rolled back this edit ([11]) using your rollback tool and then blocked the user for an hour, as his edit didn't seem like vandalism - he just seems to be on the minority in a rather lame edit war. It's usually best if you don't block editors you are in content disagreement with (it can come across as a conflict of interest). Neil ム 14:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

Your comment about "lack of experience for the citizens in democratic debate" you left at Jimbo's page may be easily interpreted as rather offensive one. Please refactor it if possible. --Irpen 23:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I will have a look. LessHeard vanU 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451

I would not be opposed to your suggestion if the behavior continues, unfortunately I don't think the point is getting across any other way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

??

What? What did I do?--Crestville 10:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, edit an article on my watchlist! LessHeard vanU 14:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious!

This diff was awesome. --lucid 14:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I was wearing my Groucho Marxist moustache while writing it... LessHeard vanU 14:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"I strongly suspect you are a Scientologist"

Hey there, I can't keep running to the admins noticeboard every time one of these people pop up or I'd never get anything done, but this is starting to turn into Whack-a-mole here.... User:Chrisp7 made a derogatory comment here about 2 of the 3 editors who voted 'keep' on this AfD, including myself. He then made even more direct and slanderous accusations at me here and here. I bring this direct to you and not the board because it's far less of a harassment matter than Shinealight2007 and Fahrenheit451's insults, but it is improper, it is offensive to me, and it does point to the continuing problem going on.

The Scientology articles are increasingly in gridlock by warring factions of pro-Scientologists and anti-Scientologists, and increasingly, there's a mindset there that you must choose a side - and since I tend to think the current state of the articles go WAY overboard with anti-Scientology original research, undue weight and WP:BLP concerns, and because I'm a stickler for encyclopedic fairness, I'm increasingly lumped in with the Scientologists (who actually can't stand me either and think my edits are too negative against Scientology - you can't win!). wikipediatrix 16:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix please read my response on the talk page, I would refer you to WP:CIVIL code. I have not made one derogatory comment about you, I havent make any derogatory comments about anyone and my intention at no point has been to offend. I find your escalation of a matter that is minor and in my eyes isnt even an issue, quite frankly, ridiculous. Chrisp7 13:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Don't insinuate that I am a Scientologist again. Period. It's an insult and I won't stand for it. Anyone who speculates on the religions of other editors has no business trying to invoke WP:CIVIL in their own defense when it pisses off the person being insinuated about. wikipediatrix 13:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No, Not whatever, I have found your tone and handling of this minor situation, kneejerk, over the top and uncivil and a complete waste of time and you have broken WP:CIVIL. Please try to act in a civil way in future - I had absolutely no ill feelings to you whatsoever before this. I however apologise if I caused offence by saying I thought you were a Scientologist and retract the statement. Chrisp7 19:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

LessHeard I have wriiten a response on my talk page if you have time could you have a quick look, thanks:)Chrisp7 19:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response to Anon

Thanks for this: [12] I missed the comment from this editor, and appreciate your help! Hiberniantears 21:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyvios

I don't mind you posting, but I'm not in a position to do a similar project right now. Tyrenius 23:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Maria rivas

Thanks LessHeard, I really didn't want to resort to reporting that person, but I'd warned them 3 times on the IP, and four times on the name, plus Angel's warning, to no avail. I didn't just plop down templates, I took the time to completely explain the issues, inviting the editor to go to the article's talk page, and request a neutral editor review and add the appropriate information, but the editor refused, instead choosing to copy/paste. It makes me sad. While I'm not really super-obsessed with finding every teenie tiny copyright violation, when it is an entire article pasted, that's a completely different thing, and I just knew if I did not report, it would either be me allowing the violation to remain, or a continued reverting of a violator. I was between a rock and a hard place. I hope the editor will read the information I gave her, and read the policies and guidelines, and come back to help improve the article. And, thank you for your intervention in the situation. (I can get up and go get a cup of tea now! ) ^Ariel♥Gold 16:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)