User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Hey ...

... You started it ... I'm just following through on it: Wikipedia:WikiProject AdministratorChed :  ?  03:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry ... I should have been more patient, waited until this morning when you were up, and had you look it over first. Trout now being accepted ;) — Ched :  ?  16:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
No worry (and no criticism intended) - if something gets legs before mine does, then the sensible thing is to transfer the effort into the one with momentum. Also, if other people are doing what I am doing, then it indicates that the level of concern is such that people are independently addressing the issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with page Vandalism

Laser jammer}} WP:WLNO Edit wars inappropriate links being posted by 67.160.23.39 and 173.10.94.201 which I believe are sock puppet accounts of the same user who owns the domain laserjammertests.com, he has been warned and continues to post inappropriate links and engage in edit wars. Please help thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.193.69 (talk) 05:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest ip blocked for a week, and page now watched. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.193.69 (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you have a look?

A chara, could you have a look at this here. I can not understand how nothing can be done to stop the disruption. --Domer48'fenian' 10:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is some background info. Current list of IP's Discussion on IP additional discussion on IP Editing restriction. --Domer48'fenian' 12:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Blocked 1 week and logged at ArbCom/The Troubles. Any further disruption and reference can be made to his block logged at same for other admins. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sound a chara, it has been going on since at least January.--Domer48'fenian' 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Did not take long, is that directed at you or me I wonder. --Domer48'fenian' 19:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Like water, like trolls - as far as I am concerned it is under the bridge... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger problem

I never saw the discussion because I didn't know the article existed, but someone created an article for the current Grand Master of Masons in MA. WP:Freemasonry has had a longstanding consensus that GMs are not notable for only being GMs, and now I'm having a real problem keeping the bio info out of the GL of MA article. The article is about the Grand Lodge, not an individual Grand Master, and most GMs have no other claim to fame. So how do we go about fixing the problem? In short, the article should have been deleted, not merged. MSJapan (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you give me some links (article/discussion). It is a general convention that local/regional organisational/government officers are not notable per the position held - they have to be independently notable - but I will need to look at the arguments on policy used to opine or amend. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
AfD discussion was a total of two merge votes after a relisting for consensus. The article was created so far under the radar that no one from WP:FM even commented on it or knew about it until after the merge, and a few of us have the Grand Lodge page watched. It was also a non-admin closure. Curent discussion is on Talk:Grand Lodge of Massachusetts#Pageau merge MSJapan (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I have noted that the proposed merge has not taken place (perhaps because the articles sponsors do not care for a single line in the larger article reading "X was Grand Master between date and date.") I would give it a week, and if it is not merged renominate it on the basis that the non-admin merge did not correctly address the lack of reference to policy by either of the respondents, that it needs proper consensus based in policy, and link to the notability criteria. I will watch the page, and will comment in that AfD. If the merge is carried out, however, then the content should be reviewed for due weight and edited according to that and notability policy. I trust this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the block on UB Alumni (talk · contribs). Do you think there is also a username and WP:Role account issue? Cirt (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the article emphasis there is at least a COI issue with the username. It may be that a friendly CU - given the dislike for fishing at SPI - can determine whether the ip resolves to an on campus computer. If not, and unless there is a big personality switch in the copyvio concerns uploads, I don't think a role account is likely. Even if it is a campus computer being used, it would still require some evidence of non linear editing to suggest a role account. I would suggest seeing if the name is a problem of itself or cries out simple COI. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD

I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A Barnstar you have earned

Admin Barnstar.png The Admin's Barnstar
For your drafting of the "rough page," "advancing a reasoning on why and how a policy for removing administrator privileges might be proposed."
And for submitting same to Jimbo Wales today.
You have my 100% support, respect, and admiration!!! Ludvikus (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - I shall place it upon my userpage immediately. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Issue of conflict of interests

My experience is that it would be best if an Administrator who's an editor in a disputed article were prevented from applying disciplinary action when s/he has a vested interest in the Article remaining according to her/his views. Case in point: me. I'm currently Restricted from nine (9) articles concerning this main one: historical revisionism. The Restricting administrator contributed significantly to the content of this extremely controversial article. The instant he determined he didn't like my editing, he simply Restricted me. Not only that, but since I didn't take it lying down, like a good obedient dog, he appointed himself my truant officer and effectively put me on "probation." I think he's actually Wiki-hounding me. Of course, I do have a "dark" past. But that I think may be due to my past Good faith ignorance of Wiki culture. I've learned much over the years on how to be a better Wikipedian. However, each time I get better, the goal gets even harder. It's somewhat like the Olympics I guess. But it would be good if one's Past were not so heavily used to evaluate the Present. I'm still thinking about how "convicted" Wiki "criminals" ought to be treated on their return. Perhaps there should be a rule not to use the Past to analyze the Present in a Talk page of any Content article. Past "misconduct" should only be discussed outside of an Article's Talk page. It should not even be raised on an individual's Talk page without permission to do so. I hope these observations are helpful to you in your effort to improve the Administration of Wikipedia. Have a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe our paths first (or most recently - I am not always an admin who disregards the past, I may simply have forgotten) crossed over this matter. I understand your point, but it behoves me to generally point out that sometimes the involved administrator is the one who is able to determine if another's contribution is disruptive/fringe/undue; it is a difficult balancing act determining where an involved admin is protecting the "mainstream" npov or is promoting their viewpoint at the expense of others, especially when the subject is fairly specialist. It is also the case that often disruptive or bad faith editors return repeatedly to the same subject and edits because they do not care for the consensus/npov version existing, and attempt to "win" their argument by attrition. Noting the editing history and the block log of such contributors can give an indication of there being a pov warrior, but may also bias any reviewer too. Often it is the responses by the party that provides clue as to whether they are interested in incorporating a minority viewpoint (within WP:UNDUE) or wish to replace the npov version with their own. Again, a matter of balanced judgement.
As to the core of your concern, perhaps it is inappropriate that the admin who has an understanding of the subject not only removes those edits which they consider improper but also appears to be the only one who warns, sanctions and reviews the editors other contributions to determine if they are valid. Has there been any other input regarding either the validity of the edits (I seem to recall that the other editors side with the admins pov, but I may be mistaken) or review of the admins actions regarding your edits, sanctions, etc. Perhaps, in an effort to resolve this, you and the admin may agree to mediation, or ask for a third opinion, on the content dispute - which then impacts on the correct use of flags. Only when there is some resolution on the content side can their be a proper review of the admins actions (which is where the proposed AdminReview process might help in future). Presently, it is either ANI, an RfC, or a third party admin agreeing to review.
I trust this is of some help.LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Correction: I'm sorry I didn't make myself clearer. I was not writing about my Own situation. I was referring to your WikiProject directed to Jimbo's attention. I strongly believe you've undertaken a very important project regarding ADM who abuse their Priviledges, and I thought my observations might be helpful in relation that task. Actually, I've had so many encounters with ADM that I cannot keep track of who said what. In your case, I was simply struck by your proposal to Jimbo, which impressed me tremendously - so I made these observations for YOUR benefit. I think I've learned how to survive at Wikipedia - though one never can be absolutely certain. Another problem I find exists is that thereis a Brotherhood of Administrators wherein one ADM will not override another, even if the latter is simply wrong.
Nevertheless, I will study what you have just said more carefully, and try to apply it to my own situation, if I can. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
My first paragraph was in respect of general situations, the second more directly applied to what I perceive to be your personal concerns. If you were commenting as regards my proposal as mentioned to Jimbo, then you or I can copy over your initial post and my first paragraph to User talk:LessHeard vanU/Dead minimum. Since it is your post, it is your choice. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Great. I was NOT talking about myself. If anything, I'm generalizing my experience. I have tremendous confidence in my ability now to handle myself in such a manner that I'll most likely win over many Wikipedians to my Objective concerns for Improving Wikipedia. So you don't have to bother about me. vague remember you crossing my path - but otherwise I'm not interested in knowing what happened before. I certainly do not have a bad impression of you regarding myself. Rather I was amazed to find ONE Wikipedian who voiced the view that Administrators may have to have their privileges removed. It is only this that makes me have such great respect for byou. I'm curious, are you all alone on this issue? Is there at least ONE other Wikipedian (besides myself) who supports your proposal?
What I suggest is that you edit things in whatever way you wish. I'll then check it out to see if it conforms to my view, and then you can do with what I've said as you please.
PS1: I was thinking of another suggestion: Perhaps a Bot, or Bots, could be programed to measure how much contributions an administrator had made, and then both the User and Adm would be automatically Flagged for lack of Neutrality.
PS2: Also, it seems utterly insane to me that any contribution by an ADM is not automatically Flagged. We're always going to be confronted by Cranks, Crackpots, Troll, & unmannerly ADM's. It would be useful to know that one must pay more careful attention to ADM, even if s/he appears like one of the former. But I now find myself wasting valuable editing time trying to figure out who might simply abuse their authority. It's just reality in this Wikispace that one must always double check to make sure an Ed. is not an Adm. - or else you know what might happen.
PS3: If no on else has supported you on your proposal, I'd recommend also that Jimbo appoint you his personal Chief of Staff for Disciplinary matters. You then would appoint twelve (12, nice number) under your commend, and each of these would be entitled to appoint 12 below them, and maybe so one, Ad infinitum down the line (or as far as necessary). And God Emperor Jimbo is ideal to head - precisely because it's his beloved baby - assuming he's good, or excellent parent, even if not perfect. But if he weren't perfect, than he wouldn't a god, would he? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Re other admins thinking there should be a way of dysopping errant colleagues can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator; most are sysops themselves - but it doesn't matter if a signatory is an admin or not, since these are the ones who think admins are editors with extra responsibilities, not enhanced status. That leads onto PS1, as editors admins have no more authority or gravitas than any other editor (of equal experience and editing standards) so I don't see the need for particular collating of editing habits - admin actions and article editing should be divorced, and only where they intersect is there a need for review. Your suggestion gives the impression that admins are unable to achieve neutrality in sysopping matters where they have an interest - I suggest the opposite is generally true; it is the exceptions that draw the attention, though. Re PS2, I agree that it is unimportant to know if a disputant is an admin or not in resolving conflict. The consequences of an admin getting things wrong is perhaps more serious, but that shouldn't effect the determination of the dispute. As I said, having a sysop using the tools to influence a dispute is a matter of concern but only post facto; AGF requires that we do not anticipate a sysop will abuse the flags. As for PS3, no, NO, and never - As might be seen below, I am in no position to be the sole (or even a major) arbiter of what constitutes abuse and who should be disciplined. I prefer when my opinion is one of many, because I am certain I am not right all the time about everything. As for Jimbo, he is the best founder of the project we have but I have misgivings about the distance he attains when it comes to certain aspects of supervising or commenting upon the project and some of the contributors - he was close to banning me earlier this year, for instance! I don't really see there being a future as me as his major-demo. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I'll study what you've just written very carefully. Have a nice day or night. Oh! I'm sad to learn that you're actually on his "bad boy" list. My impression was that you had his ears/eyes because he wrote to you "I'm not going anywhere." Well. That's Wikipedia. Quite complex - and one often thins one knows what one doesn't. Under those circumstance I advise you NOT to post anything from me on his page - because with my past as a "disruptor" it'll not be helping your cause any. I'd say that you should wait I couple of months until at least I'm more respected (on the other hand, it could go the other way through no fault of my own. Trust me on that. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Mind your manners when leaving block messages

This was uncalled for. When someone like this gets blocked, we should never give them any leverage in their unblock requests. Unfortunately for you, I think you owe him an apology. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Seaweed-covered rocks in the United Kingdom.
Rotting seaweed can be extremely useful, you know... Yours, contagiously , Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Cute, but it still doesn't address the issue. Daniel Case (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There's no issue here. Editors who have exhausted their ration of good faith deserve everything they get, from intelligent but somewhat barbed wit that they are unlikely to understand, to blocking. Meanwhile, the admins who spend what time they can spare here fighting this nonsense on all fronts when they could be improving content deserve a little leeway, unless it's an ongoing problem. I don't see that here. If you think it's such a problem, please feel free to take it elsewhere. Meanwhile, I think twelve hours a day is enough to commit here, so I hope you'll forgive me if I try to get some sleep. Rah, rah, rah. Rodhullandemu 23:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "We don't like you very much and think you smell of rotting seaweed." I am neutral. I came here by accident because I've been studying the Wiki work of an Administrator whom I particularly respect in part for his emphasis on Civility at WP. But I'm shocked to learn that the Blocking Administrator left this message as part of the reason for the Block. I find that not only extremely provocative, for which the Administrator should have his privileges removed, but it clearly show the true reason for the Block: that "we" (Wikipedians) "don't like you very much." In my opinion this User ought to be immediately Blocked from his one week Block, and perhaps the Blocking Administrator ought to be himself Blocked for 24 hours so he can think about the way he himself has handled this situation. At the least, let us remember that WP requires "No Personal attacks" ("smelling like seaweed") and no Provocation, Confrontation, all of which produce Disruption. I know that to be a fact. Upon the termination of the One week Block, the Administrator may be Confronted with Wiki Revenge. I suspect that whatever this User has done is trivial compared to the Abuse that this Administrator has now been found to have committed by this Disruptive language. I hope there is at least one Administrator out there in Wiki space who is Brave enough to immediately Unblock this User, and instead consider appropriate action against the Blocking Administrator instead. Thank you for thinking very carefully about the point I'm making. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • PS" "Don't be a dick," or should I say "Don't be dicks"? Say it to all you (un-named) Administrators that lack the sensibility that this is Disruptive to every male in the world who understands this metaphor: "You smell of rotting seaweed"? You realize, of course, that almost any man with "balls" would punch one in one's nose if he met one in an appropriate bar and you said it to him to his face? So why turn Wikipedia into a bar room brawl? I suspect I've made some spelling errors. But I'd like to say that content editors, are worth millions to Wikipedia, while far too many Administrators, who use such WP:Disruptive language might be rated on the Bristol Stool Scale [1]. Would those Administrator[s] who find "rotten sea weed" metaphor please step up and rate themselves accordingly in their capacity as WP administrators? I tell you this - I've been Blocked due to my work at philosophy precisely because an ADM their rated me on this scale. But through extreme self discipline, I now learned to resist such extremely disruptive provocations. So unless you wish to be yourselves the cause of Disruption at WP, I strongly urge to put all kinds of "shit" exactly where it belongs - in the toilet or outhouse. Even cyberspace needs to be "ecologically" clean. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd submit that we should not be using redlinked block reasons; If and when someone writes Wikipedia:WEDON'TLIKEYOUVERYMUCHANDTHINKYOUSMELLOFROTTINGSEAWEED, that's a different issue. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI

ANI has been protected for over two hours now. Isn't that more than enough time to exclude every single IP and new editor? It isn't as though we have an alternative, as AN is also protected. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Post what you'd like to say on AN/I on my talk page and I'll move it over for you. –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 04:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
From a review of the protection log, this is the second 24 hour sprotection in appx 60 hours - somebody is as dedicated to posting their viewpoint as they are not inclined to register an account. As Katerenka says, find an active admin and request they post your enquiry (and registering an account will also, after a short while, stop the inconvenience.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Grey column

Hello LessHeard vanU, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Grey column has been removed. It was removed by Colonel Warden with the following edit summary '(+ citation -tag &c.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Colonel Warden before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Jsaxton86

I have a user requesting unblocking. Apparently, you blocked them for 9999 hours (per this and this) for vandalism. The user is now requesting unblock, noting that only two of their edits were unconstructive. I can't read that blog (it doesn't like my browser, apparently), so could you have a look? Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it's been 10 months so maybe 'time served', if he promises not to make any more hoaxes... –xenotalk 18:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe - but then again, maybe not. Sandstein reviewed the blog, where the user bragged about making up an entry about the death of a living person, and fabricating a source link to match. He then upped the block to indef, and - given the circumstances - I agree. So that'll take care of that, I think, pending further requests from the user. Not sure how he would talk himself out of this block, though. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, it is resolved but here are my comments anyway. If anyone where to discuss the matter with Jsaxton86 it may be that a comment that a new account that didn't put hoaxes into the encyclopedia would likely never have cause to be investigated wouldn't be amiss. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy and guidelines

On the talk page for WP:Policy and guidelines I have proposed rewording the small section that describes what a policy is in order to remove the present language that can be inferred as policy being what should be done in every case by every user. The new language I have proposed (with so far no particular wording set in stone yet) would make it clear that policy is not a "coookie-cutter" solution to every problem, they arent laws strictly adhered to, consensus can override policy, and IAR is paramount. I think your comment on the ANI succinctly and concisely put it, whereas my wording is quite....wordy. Your comment was, and I hope I got it right,- Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. I was wondering if you would like to comment on the talk page with your view, so far it seems two or three have commented that I cant really see that they object but their comments dont seem to endorse either, and one editor has posted in vehement opposition and thinks that our policies are in fact laws, just of a different name. I think, especially for newbies we make it clear on that page that our questioning policies and evolving them is good, we want new blood to come in and find new ways of doing things, push the boundaries, and in the spirit of IAR improve Wikipedia even if it means breaking a "rule".Camelbinky (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have connectivity problems at home presently, and limited access at work (this is my lunchbreak!), so I will just point you at WP:NOTSTATUTE which provides the rationale and policy (huge irony situation!) for my comments - feel free to develop them from there. Other long term contributors will also be able to assist; as this is a wiki then even policies are open to change, and per the working of the above link then they change to reflect consensus i.e. consensus, which is as much governed by practice as it is discussion, will obviously change before the wording of policy (first a change occurs and consensus supports it, and then new consensus for the new wording of policy is agreed, and then the policy page is amended > policy pages always lags behind consensual practice). I trust this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It does help alot, thank you, I had never read WP:NOTSTATUTE before, that will come in quite handy. Thanks! Hope your computer situation improves soon, you are very valuable around here.Camelbinky (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
If you're able to, your vote at WP:Village Pump (proposals) would be helpful, its the thread regarding a vote on whether or not policy is law or not. I'm trying to get as wide-ranging views as possible so spread the word if you can, even to those who have the opposing view. Thanks and I hope your connectivity problem is fixed soon!Camelbinky (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI

"Please note that I have indef blocked arad, Xashaiar and Nepaheshgar for their disregard of WP policy and their concerted efforts to have ChrisO blocked for attempting to apply policy in their contentious editing." I reformatted this comment because you had somehow transcluded said users' userpages by mistake. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 01:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block of the chauvinist POV-pusher Xashaiar. This is a user with such a grudge against Arabs that he won't even write out the word "Arabian" in full [2] (that edit is from his previous incarnation as Xoniagri (talk · contribs)). Not sure why we tolerate people who are only here to import ethnic conflicts. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
(To The OtterMeister) It has been a little while since I put a colon where a bar should be - or is it the other way round? - within the squiggly brackets... Thanks anyhoo! LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

Pursuant to my comments on the users' talk page,I have unblocked Nepaheshgar. The user apologized and promised not to do it again. That being said, I will say that the whole sequence did not assuage popular concerns that some rules are only for some. Chris O crossed a bright line in a poor cause and was instantly unblocked. Nepaheshgar was accused of an undefined offense, and was blocked indefinitely. The appearance is poor. Note that I do not say that there was any impropriety, I am talking about how it might look to an uninvolved editor, especially with Chris jumping back in and urging that the block being maintain. Thank you for your hard work to improve Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It is in the nature of indefinite blocks; most think of them as "without end" whereas I use them as "until un-necessary". My rationale, as has been explained in several places, is was that it was intended to bring the discussion back to the content and not the character and history of the other disputant. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
If that is the case, then ChrisO needs also to be blocked in same manner that Nepaheshgar was. It's a clear double standard, and you have no excuse for it. I wish more users were as intelligent and understanding as Wehwalt. You should read what he posted again, and perhaps correct/admit your mistake. --Arad (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of Xashaiar

Hello LessHeard vanU. Xashaiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  06:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC) (See also the comments on my talk page.)  Sandstein  06:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've unblocked Arad without restriction as he said he was sorry and I assumed good faith. You said you didn't need to be consulted. All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
No problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

This edit got me confused, is it allowed? --Dave1185 (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's borderline, but it was also changed within a minute to something less out-of-line. Probably not worth worrying about right now; if the behavior continues we can deal with it then.  Frank  |  talk  14:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Okie dokie~! --Dave1185 (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblock Requets

Hi

I would like to be unblocked please. Please could you delete my Samlaptop85213 account and all other accounts related to Samlaptop85213 and I will start over with nice, constructive edits. This is a promise. I made this promise to a Forum administrator, and he doesn't want any spamming on his forum. He told me that if I do spam and missbehave because they need to keep a sustainable behavior, you will be permanatley banned. I am on probation for a year on their forum. So it would be gratefull if you could do what I said, and I will create a new account here, on Wikipedia (Samlaptop) and I will make constructive edits and if Majorly is reading this, I will make constructive edits on Simple Wikipedia as well with my new Samlaptop account.

Thanks, Samlaptop85213 --89.243.4.23 (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Shirley Bassey

I was on the point of deleting the sub-section, 'References in popular culture' in her article, before pausing and seeking a second opinion. To me, a better sub-heading would be 'Trivia, twaddle and complete infantile bollocks'. Apart from being hopelessly without a single reference, it strikes me that even with several it would still look more like Facebook, MySpace or Twitter rather than Encyclopedia Britannica. The overall quality of her article has had me in apoplexy for ages, although more generally in recent times it is being improved. However, I thought prudence the better part of .... whatever, and would much value your views. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I should think that the Little Voice film (major British film, major British actress, relating to a major British icon) mention could be incorporated into the articles' main body - which I haven't read - quite easily. One or two other bits, such as the Morecombe and Wise appearance, could also, if only to indicate the length of her status, too. All these subject to being sourced, which shouldn't be difficult. The rest is not germane to the subjects notability and could easily be removed or, like the Stars In Their Eyes contestant, be moved to the referenced subject. The only note of caution is to recognise that WP is not Britannica, and that WP is the preferred resource for many regarding popular culture. I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes - you're right. However, from a simple deletion, I am now left with the considerable task of tracing references and moving sentences/paragraphs etc. I must, of course, having raised the subject, try to do this. If not Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia will be more like Hello! etc. More 'dumbing down'; oh well, it is probably my age. Best wishes,
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Siouxsie & the Banshees

This comment was recently added on the discussion page. "lots of syntax and grammar shit" "sloppy". "it really needs some reworking or at least correction of all the syntax stuff so it'll look more professional and cohesive." [link]

As English is not my first language, could you correct these syntax and grammar mistakes ?

Carliertwo (talk) 18:00, 23 october 2009 (UTC)

Ha! There is a good chance that some or lots of the syntax and grammar shit was mine to start with - but I will have a run through it sometime over the weekend. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

LA

I don't want to get in the middle of anything, but I think there is WP support for linking certain cities and not mentioning the surrounding state or other political division. This is true of certain US cities ([[3]]), but cities in many other countries are also listed. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a view I subscribe to, and appears contrary to Wikipedia:Systemic bias. This is a general knowledge encyclopedia for English speaking people, not the North American/British (and Former Colonies) Gazette. Well, yes, there is a case for New York, London, and Sydney - although can most Americans name the actual Australian capital city? - maybe not needing the identifier, but where to draw the line? What is obvious to those who think it a worthwhile hobby to edit an encyclopedia may not be so to all those, many who are not from the same demographic, who use it as a resource. Even if it can be argued that it isn't necessary to provide such "obvious" data in some cases, it is surely pointless to revert it if it has been put in. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
When a link is involved, someone in the minority who doesn't recognize the name can click the link. In any case, if the article that guides editors makes it clear that certain city names may be used without the qualification, it doesn't seem fair to correct editors who do that. — John Cardinal (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I'd like an opinion; I can't find anything specific at WP:MOS, but I feel that my edits are consistent with consensus, or at the very least, with lack of objections. When mentioning place names in the UK in an infobox (BLP, for example), do you feel that is it really necessary to include "United Kingdom"? For England I usually include town, county and constituent country - Huncoat, Lancashire, England - or for Greater London - Shepherd's Bush, London, England - but omit "UK" or "United Kingdom". Likewise for other places - Glasgow, Scotland, eg, but no "UK". How much information is appropriate? Radiopathy •talk• 19:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this relates to the point above, how much do we assume of the knowledge of the reader? It is the case that it has appeared that non UK people are confused between the differences between England/Scotland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom (of England and Scotland). Generally, although the nation is legally referred to as the UK, places in England and Scotland mostly only need that label to be recognisably UK. Places in Wales, though, often have the UK definition included so as to not upset the sensibilities of anyone from assuming that the principality is part of England. I was previously involved in editing many Cornwall related articles, and the pov and edit warring of Cornish and English nationalist minded editors was such that a compromise of "...England, United Kingdom" was agreed - it is ugly and no-one really likes it, but it is acceptable. Also, Northen Ireland place names usually have a UK label attached for the same reason of ensuring it is not confused with Irish Republic places. Again, this is an area of sensitivity and debate. In short, there is no specific guideline because of the sensibilities of of many of the editors contributing to these areas. Generally, the historical countries that compromise the UK nation suffices (but be prepared to discuss). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Response for 76.15.216.153

Crystal Clear app ktip.png Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 76.15.216.153. We wanted to let you know that the case has been opened and is currently under investigation. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 00:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, LessHeard vanU. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

50?

Happy birthday, and welcome to the club! — John Cardinal (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Many happy returns, old boy. I'm 55 next week, so I know how it feels - have a nice day, y'all.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
And I; at 56 I feel like a person of 18, but that's a different story. Welcome to the old codgers' club! Rodhullandemu 13:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
(I also feel like a person of 18, but were my wife to find out there would be hell to pay... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

A Birthday pint on me

Cheers for helping me with persistent vandals and disruptive editors in the past, always in a fair and objective manner! --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Rationalising the 42 General Questions

Hi there, LHVU. We've asked similar questions, and the hunt is on for ways of rationalising the huge list of questions. Here are both:

  1. As an arbitrator, do you think that the process of desysopping of administrators should remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo) or would you prefer that a community based process is also put in place? (LessHeard vanU)
    A:
  2. Is it appropriate for ArbCom to set up a subcommittee to deal with allegations by users that administrative actions have breached policy? (Tony1)
    A:

I wonder whether we can find a new wording that we could co-sign. What u think? Here's the thematic presentation that may form the basis for how the GQs are eventually set out. Tony (talk) 11:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we are asking two separate questions, although relating to the same concern. I am asking whether the candidate feels that the community can provide a process which may result in a desysopping, while you (as I read it) are asking whether the ArbCom can use a sub-Committee process. Perhaps the answer to either is not mutually exclusive (both, either or neither are valid responses) but I don't see how both questions might be resolved into one by which one response would satisfy both points. That said, I have no objection to combining the questions - possibly as a two pointer - if it can be done in a concise manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion, LHVU. What about:
"Should the process of (a) reviewing admin actions that may have breached policy, and (b) desysopping, remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo), or would you prefer that a community-based process also perform this role?
Your thoughts? I guess we need to keep the reference to Jimbo ... Tony (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is fine with the exception that, grammatically, the penultimate word should be "these" rather than "this", since there is more than one point being referred to. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Ta, shall implement. Tony (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing linked content

Maybe I should have explained why I removed linked content of the page Kurdistan Workers' Party. The page had and after your edit has again a link to Administrative reforms against terrorism. I have nominated this page for deletion (you can see that at the top of the page). Reasons for that can be found on the page created to discuss the suggestion for deletion. So far, there has been no objection and my comment I left on the talk page of the article as long ago as 3 September 2009 has not triggered any comment either. That is why I decided to remove the linked text before it will get red colour. In any case, the text that you "installed" again is misleading. There are and never were administrative reforms in Turkey against terrorism. Measures against terrorism were predominantly taken in military terms and to some degree in legislation. One such specific law is the Anti-Terror Law (Law 3713 of April 1991), mentioned on Anti-terrorism_legislation#Turkey, but by no means described adequately. Martial law and state of emergency in Turkey were introduced at times of a civil war at the end of the 1970s and some special forces such as Jandarma İstihbarat ve Terörle Mücadele and Özel tim-Özel Harekat Timi (Special Team) (another bad article) are part of the Deep state (this article is better, but needs improvement as well). Put into historical context you would also have to mention Counter-Guerrilla. I should better stop here and just ask you whether you agree that I had a point in deleting linked text? Sc.helm (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

My input at the PPK page is generally to revert bold/controversial edits, per the WP:BRD cycle, to try and maintain a neutral pov. I would comment that should the linked page be deleted then there is a good argument to have the content changed - but only after the deletion debate (and I would point out that one of the arguments in a delete debate is the number of links the page has; removing them during the discussion is likely considered to be unwise). It is best not to pre-empt such decisions. I would also comment that the removed content had been included for a little while, so perhaps its removal should have been discussed. I would therefore suggest that you open a discussion on the article talkpage to get a consensus for an alternative wording, as soon as the result of the AfD is in. In short, my response to your last sentence is that I would have preferred that the removal of content referenced the discussion and resultant consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

File:Halloween Hush Puppies.jpg
Photograph of my Halloween-themed Hush Puppies plush basset hounds in my bedroom.

As Halloween is my favorite holiday, I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Reversion

Yes, of course, no offence caused :) I just thought that it's sheer length would cause Jimbo to revert it anyway, as it has no real summary. But, of course, we should let Jimbo decide. My apologies, Skinny87 (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Huge post on Jimbo's Talk

I realize that Jimbo is a "court of appeal", but that huge post on his talk page is not necessary. A reasonably short statement by the "appellant" with a link to the page with the parties, statements, evidence, etc., is sufficient. —Finell (Talk) 20:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply, if any, here on your Talk page)

I have contacted HarryAlffa suggesting that the content be collapsed to improve its chances of being retained, but I don't want to participate in an edit war which, if matters are done without consent, would likely be the result of any unilateral splitting/reduction. Perhaps you might add your voice at User talk:HarryAlffa? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm on my way. Meanwhile, thanks for the interim collapse. —Finell (Talk) 20:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

195.30.17.81

Hi LessHeard. I'm puzzled by your block of 195.30.17.81. It seems to be because he's a "sockpuppet" of a blocked user, "Magyar nem ember". However, as I understand it, the username was blocked as offensive, and, username aside, the user hadn't received more than warnings. I quote User talk:Magyar nem ember: "Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below)." (The page says nothing about editing while not logged in.) True, somebody who was obviously the same person then made the mistake of reinventing the username with the addition of a "1" at the end; this new name was quickly and rightly blocked. But if this renders this editor an instantly blockable puppetmaster, this should at the least be explained on the talk page. (I might add that I have no high regard for the contributions of this editor.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It is an ip being used to ignore the block of the account - more so, to reinstate the edits by the editor with the problematic account name; there is no apparent interest by the editor in abiding by WP policy and guideline. My understanding is that socking to evade a block, even if the edits are acceptable otherwise, for whatever reason is grounds for a sanction. I would be reluctant to allow an editor with a fairly obnoxious username to resume editing as an ip without addressing those concerns, but I am not so wedded to my actions to disagree if another admin feels that WP:SOCK is not being violated and lifts the block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
My own problem with the username business is that I don't understand Hungarian and haven't seen the name explained by anyone who couldn't be accused of being a partisan (however scrupulous and legitimate) in the matters that concern the user. (Of course, the user had and still has the right to challenge the interpretation of his name, and so far hasn't bothered to exercise this.) As for "socking to evade a block", recall that the user talk page even now explicitly states "Your username is the only reason for this block" (it hasn't been subsequently edited). True, the near-duplication of this username complicates matters. How about amending the user talk page accordingly? -- Hoary (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
A problem like that could be solved very easily. If you visit this link [4] you see a bunch of irrelevant text and this "If your Hungarian is poor, you can leave us a message in English [[5]]." the word "here" points to a place in the Hungarian wikipedia where there are hundreds of users who could help in translating two words ("nem" and "ember") as Magyar is already available in our own wiki. Or alternatively you can use google translate to find out the meaning of these two words "nem"[6] and "ember" [7]. Hope that helped the issue. Hobartimus (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
To be totally honest, I had not recalled the basis under which the account had been blocked but simply compared the edits by the sanctioned account and that of the ip - on that basis I acted under the basis of obvious socking (you will note I declined to act on another ip, since they had not edited for 24 hours); I have no view upon the validity or lack regarding the particular edit. I have subsequently reviewed the ANI discussion, and see no argument against the interpretation of the name. As you say, the account has not complained either about the interpretation either. As far as I am concerned there are two separate issues, one of a controversial username and one of the account socking around their block. I acted on the latter. As for the former, it is a matter for the community to revisit should there be reason to do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to lose much sleep over him and I suggest you don't either. After all, he did promptly create a near-identical offensive username and he's yet to explain himself (or even apologize) on his talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
In case it still matters: I once learned Hungarian. I forgot most of it, but I still remember these words: Magyar = Hungarian, nem = not, ember = man, human. I don't know if "Magyar nem ember" is proper Hungarian or what exactly it would mean to a Hungarian speaker, but I can say that the lack of a verb is normal since (like in Latin) "is" is usually optional. Hans Adler 13:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
And surely "Magyar" is the adjective. I wonder if it's also the word for a person. Just last week I bought a (pleasant but insipid) Japanese photo book of Hungary and Hungarian people titled (in roman script) Magyar, and a Hungarian friend saw this and laughed at the title. -- Hoary (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
It means "Hungarians are not human beings", and it is grammatically correct, though slightly archaic. It is from an old folk saying which has many versions (e.g. "potatoes are not food, women are not human beings", "beer is not a drink, slovaks are not human beings"). --Tgr (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Now this is interesting. Thank you, Tgr. -- Hoary (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Context? If I said, "I am a wrinkled potato" it would mean nothing without the qualifier "If the US is not a small country in Africa, then..." However if I were to call people wrinkled potato's without reference to the qualifier then a few might be upset (and the majority bewildered). I would then be judged on the context in which I used it, and my general activity. Such is this case, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Slade

Hello - again. I know from the article's discussion page, that you once made a comment about trying to improve the Wiki article. After months of bleating myself about the lack of references etc., I am finally getting round to trying to upgrade it. Would you be interested in helping me ? No offence if it is no longer a priority in your life. I was more a Sweet and T. Rex fan at the time, I seem to remember - but what the hell. Dear old Noddy and co deserve far better than the present article. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I, too, was more enamoured of The Sweet (to my shame) and Bolan (and still am) - plus some guy with a lead guitarist called Mick Ronson - when Slade were at the height of their popularity. Not sure what I might bring to the article, since I don't really get involved in the creative side of the 'pedia much these days, though. I haven't even started adding refs to the Ronno article, and I have had the reprinted biog for a couple of weeks now... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Fully understand; merely trying to muster up some support. Ronno, eh - from my home town you know. They tell me the bio is hopeless, full of POV and hear'say - rather like Wiki ! LOL.
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Re The Spider With The Platinum hair; it is unfortunately true - I really enjoyed it, but it is not a good piece of writing. As for the Ronson article, I believe that was where we first interacted... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you are correct. Actually, the longer you stay around Wiki's pop music articles (in all their many genres), the same user names keep cropping up again and again. Normally this is good news, because the vast majority of them add quality. Don't get me started on the IP addresses, who normally (not always, it must be said) add dross upon dross. Anyway back to Slade for me - Cum On Feel the Noize ! Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Cynthia Lennon

I'm having a spot of bother with an editor who has a problem with plagiarism, and accuses me (in no uncertain words) of practising it. I would appreciate your input on this, as Cynthia's article is up for a GA review, and would never pass with "This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources. (November 2009)" tag on it. Hey-ho...--andreasegde (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have given the comments on your talkpage a quick review (in fact, since it is on my watchlist, I had an even briefer look when they were first posted). The first thing I would ask is, do you really want my comments? - because I don't do content disputes these days but I do do personal dispute resolution; and neither of you are coming out of this with much credit. However, if your intention is to resolve the matter of potential copyright/plagiarism concerns then you need a third opinion of someone with experience in such matters. I can direct you in that direction, if required. Let me know how you would like me to proceed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes please. This has to be resolved before Cynthia gets her GA review. Thanks.--andreasegde (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I know why you are an admin, and I could never be. Brilliantly written and very well said (with the unfortunate truth being explicitly stated for both sides of this dispute). I thank you. Maybe this can now be sorted out.--andreasegde (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments on my talk page. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Cooper momentum

There seems to be no Thumbs up, but there should be :-) Thanks and cheers, DVdm (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Persistant vandal

Hi! You put a three month block on 62.254.173.97 in February, for resuming non constructive editing, the 11th editing block on the user! As he/her has now resumed vandalising again, with seven edits today alone, could you possibly place a longer term block on the IP address. The one prior to yours was for six months? Richard Harvey (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Schoolblocked for a year (this obviously indicates that it takes an entire educational facility to fart around with Wikipedia - why does the future look so bleak..?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Whats worse is that all the educational facilities in Kirklees are provided with internet access through the local council servers. Just one little entry by their council's IT dept would block all Anon editing from their schools! ;) Richard Harvey (talk) 10:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A little word in your ear

Well, it's certainly possible that you are right here. But it could also be that this is a reference to General Tojo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wrong - so it seems that all is okay with the encyclopedia, generally... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"General Tojo"

There is an extremely obnoxious vandal and sockpuppeteer whose original account was called User:General Tojo. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/General Tojo for some of the background. Because this was one of the earlier chronic pain-in-the-neck sockmasters, the name is referred to sometimes by editors who were around back then as an archetype of sockdom, a la referencing "Willy on Wheels" as a reference to vandals. I am sure the comment on ANI referred to this, and not at all to the historical General Tojo. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Brad, I am shocked at how concise you are being - I must have made a very serious mistake; I hope I have taken the appropriate actions! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Politeness Police

This was deleted within (I think) 5 hours. Could you undelete/move to my user space, along with it's talk page? I will be using this abuse of process (in my view) in ArbCom. Hope you can help. Cheers. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It can now be found at User:HarryAlffa/ArbCom/Wikipedia:Politeness Police, in its immediately prior to deletion state. I trust that any editing to the article will to be only remove the notice. I would also suggest that your request proceeds in a timely fashion. I shall also notify User:SarekOfVulcan of my actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed to userfication for these purposes. Note, please, that I speedy deleted it as an attack page, due to the not-terribly-veiled implication that people who tried to enforce politeness on Wikipedia were cunts.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I have kept the item on my watchlist, and the new page title should make it unlikely that anyone will mistake it for official commentary - even if they do not know the purpose for the undelete. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that LessHeard. Can I ask for one more thing - the page's talk page? I will be using this in the ArbCom. Cheers. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Sarek's description of it is completely wrong on a number of levels, his analysis is very unintelligent, but as I shall be calling for his desysoping on the grounds of similarly unintelligent analysis and actions there's no need to say more. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I had already done so, it can be found at User talk:HarryAlffa/ArbCom/Wikipedia talk:Politeness Police. I would comment that you are not going to get any traction at ArbCom for a desysop based upon "unintelligence", and indeed might taint your case by implying that people should be sanctioned for not being able to demonstrate advanced thinking (because the average of the admin corp reflects that of the editor pool from where they are drawn, who are generally just above average.) You need to show that those which you are complaining of refused to countenance differing viewpoints, suppressed rather than addressed evidence backing your claims, did not seek other expert advice - only relying on their own knowledge, and the other usual problems of lack of good faith, lack or misuse of process, and poor application of policy. If, however, you proceed on the basis that your superior intellect negates the good faith but badly informed actions of others then you may end up being regarded as the problem rather than the victim. I hope you will bear these observations in mind when you make your request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks again for the moves. One other undelete, if you would, and judge it correct - the page dog sex was brought up in the ANI[8] on the aurora (astronomy) article. Ruslik hinted at his intention to delete it's history on grounds of BLP abuse. I don't believe this was a sensible reason, as I think (but can't be sure 'cause it's history has been deleted), that the only connection Ruslik made was an author's name used in describing the book she wrote (with a link to Amazon?). I was going to ask in the ANI for this, but as it was so obviously being ignored (corruptly in my view) there seemed no point. But if this was a sensible and good faith action by Ruslik I'll be happy to hear it. I've just reviewed the ANI, and am freshly appalled at the corruption, but could you do some tidying up of the archive and of this[9] following section, which is really part of the "original" ANI?
It is not a question of comparative intellectual ability/capacity, it is a matter of consistent demonstration of such poor intellect that it is a danger to the project, or I should say damaging. But then again there are so many demonstrations of poor intellect, by so many admins, that it does becomes a danger to the project, and is damaging articles - as the Solar System article shows by it's monopolization for years by extraordinarily poor intellects. As for sanctions, for admins who simply can't cut it, a desysop is not a sanction, it's just a necessary action.
Thank you again for your time and action.
And fuck me, but it's a joy to interact with someone who has a whole wit, and probably more! :) HarryAlffa (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
(Belated comment!)I'm not sure what measure of time would be timely, but there is quite a lot of stuff to think through carefully on this, particularly given this additional material. I'll do my best, but there will be a hiatus of a week or so from today, so I will do little until 3 November, 2009. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Last things first, providing that you are working upon the Request when you are active on WP then it remains timely - it would only be a problem if you were editing and picking up new projects and allowing the potential evidence pages to languish in your userspace in the meantime. Any activity in regard to the Request, be it piecemeal or not, suffices.
With regard to the deleted history of the Dog Sex article - I would not be minded to undelete, because of the BLP considerations. I would, however, be prepared to email the content of the version prior to deletion so you can see what they are - or you can take my word that removing those versions from the history was appropriate. If you rather have the evidence available for reference, since all Arbs have the ability to see deleted content they do not need it undeleted either, then let me know if your WP email option is enabled. If it isn't, and you do not wish to activate it, you can use my email faculty to provide me with an address I can send the content to.
Again with the intellect issue, I do feel you should concentrate rather on the failures (as you may see it - I am helping procedurely rather than making opinion) to embrace other/opposing viewpoints, to explain certain actions, to request other opinions when in disagreement, to get third opinions before making disputed actions, and other concerns in respect of conduct rather than your perceptions of why such behaviours occurred. This is the 'comment on the content, not the contributor' aspect that I can assure you the Committee will require you to adhere to. Provide examples of sub optimum conduct, but do not provide your impressions why these behaviours are apparent. If nothing else, it means that the matter will not be diverted by protests of personal attacks within the framework of the request and can concentrate upon the effects of the alleged violations of policy and responsibility. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, missed a bit. I am not inclined to edit the archives - they are what they are; they are created by a bot process, and can be considered a bit like a hard disk drive (everything is all there, but perhaps a bit scattered and certainly not in the order in which they were originally created). Unless there is a very serious reason such as a missed BLP violation it is generally best not to change what has been committed to history. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Archives, yes, it's a good point you make, and one I considered myself...
My email option is active, so you can email me that content, I may still make reference to it in some way - won't know until I see it! Thanks. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
"Ping!" as I believe the obselete reference goes... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Well that's much better than plonk :)
Thanks for that. I agree that the wording on Marjorie Garber was problematic (as you say it could be viewed as implying an autobiographical account), and I would have changed it, but I think deleting the whole thing was over-the-top, particularly as it was part of an ANI which Rulsik's and his friend Ckatz were the subjects of - it smacks of cover-up. Other entries (definitely no pun intended here, but you've got to laugh) I would re-write, some smack of "any excuse to mention rude words". Anyway, no time for this just now! Cheers! HarryAlffa (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Type "A" Positive

Sometimes people write little things about themselves in WP that make me say, "Ya, me too!" I took typing in high-school ( I thought it would help my guitar playing...) when all of my buddies were down the hall making "happy birthday cards" using BASIC and COBOL punchcard programs. Like, hundreds of punchcards to write "Happy Birthday." So wasteful....

I know of a small machine shop that still runs punchcard machines. It all looks so "ricky-tick" compared to modern processes. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thank you! LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved....

...I've been involved for all of two hours or so, after I saw the original ANI request. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I will amend my comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

my forgiving nature

Re: "Not being as forgiving as Floquenbeam...": Not really; it's just that a stern warning is the most powerful weapon I have in my arsenal. :) Good block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Have you considered (or previously been considered for) getting the extra buttons? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. In retrospect, it kind of looks like I was fishing for that. Thanks though, nice of you to say, even if I forced you into it. I'm a bit light in the total edits category, so I'm holding off for a while. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see it as fishing - I see you around the 'Boards making sensible comments and I thought... I should have realised by that simple fact you are not flagged. Anyway, when you feel like tilting at that particular windmill let me know and I shall see if I can't help out. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll do that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comments re: WP:NEWT

Hear, hear. It kills me that the instigators of this project refuse to consider that sting ops might possibly be controversial. "Arbcom approves, so how are you complain?" Ridiculous. This is not the War on Drugs. This is an encyclopedia. This also isn't a self-esteem writing project. I like to think we are here for the readers. Keeping fake crap articles around longer so we don't offend fake people who can't write is so beyond logical it makes my head hurt. Auntie E. 17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI this was taken to Arbcom

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_The_Troubles

No need to respond, just notifying you of the request made by Elonka. Sswonk (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Block of Mobile Historian

Hi, there is an open ArbCom case request lodged by Mobile historian and I see you've indef'd them for block evasion. I have to gather the details so I can close the case (I'm a clerk). Can you direct me to the SPI or other investigation/discussion associated with this block? Cheers Manning (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on the RfAR page; namely, that I responded to an ANI report, saw the suspected sock template, did my own quick review of similarities of editing subject and content, and blocked as an obvious sock (per WP:DUCK) - which I consider within my sysop remit. I then noted my actions and rationale at Mobile historian's talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Saw your note at RfAR - thanks for that. Regards Manning (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mobile historian

Hi Less. I am evaluating this user's unblock request. Could you post a summary explanation of why you think this user is a sock puppet? If indeed they are, that information may be helpful to future administrators. In any case, it will help minimize disruption. I believe Checkuser would not be helpful in this case due to staleness, but I may ask a CU to verify that. Thank you very much, Jehochman Talk 14:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Both Mobile historian and Tancarville (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) are primarily concerned with nobility of Malta, both resort to name calling (Tancarville, Mobile historian) and both have an ambivalent attitude toward Wikipedia policies - both accounts seem to think it doesn't involve them, but expect others to adhere to them. Upon review prompted by your request, I would add that Mobile historian is far more adept at using WP policy and practice to promote their viewpoint - suspiciously so when they have edited so rarely - than Tancarville, but I may conclude that they have had time to learn the lesson from earlier and attempt to be more subtle in their approach. In short, a brief review was sufficient for me to conclude that the shared interests, use and style of invective, and attitude regarding policy was too similar to be chance - perhaps two out of three, but not all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. Jehochman Talk 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
And thank you for your efforts. I came to a similar conclusion - that ArbCom filing and his command of Wikipedia jargon (such as "permabanning," for one) was pretty suspicious for someone with all of two dozen edits before this week - but didn't figure that speculation beyond wondering whether a checkuser was appropriate would be in keeping with AGF. 'Tis a pity.  RGTraynor  23:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems that Mobile Historian is to remain blocked - I am not entirely sure that I understand Jehochman's rationale, that an unblock would be more disruptive; surely if this is not a sock, then only an undertaking to interact more appropriately would suffice - but I would comment that I would not be surprised if another editor will one day appear to edit this article, one who is far better at the use of policy and practice in putting forward their viewpoint and who will (if questioned about any relationship to either of the above accounts) request that their ip is checked against Mobile historian. I forgot to mention that my suspicions were further aroused by that request, since it appears to show a knowledge of how CU works and confidence no definitive connection could be made, in that a casual account would not be aware but someone who had changed their ISP would. I must say that I am certain I should not work within the SPI field; I am far too cynical. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
More likely than not, this is a sock based on behavior. What seals it for me is that after I suggested they might be unblocked, they insisted upon recreating deleted articles, and said they intended to add a spam link. Here is a list of articles that may require cleanup. I've requested blacklisting of that link.[10] Those who are more familiar with Maltese nobility are encouraged to comment on my request. Jehochman Talk 13:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it comes to it - and provided this is a sock/meatpuppet - if MH/Tancarville under Yet Another Name gets far more adept at staying within policy and edits these articles within acceptable policy and guidelines, that's an outcome no one could really begrudge, could we? Under the circumstances, though, I don't see it. Someone who defines incivility as "anyone saying anything to me I don't like" and believes anything uncivil he says himself is just meting out what the peons have coming to them is not likely to change his ways. As far as your request, Jehochman, my main problems with the maltagenealogy.com is in that there's very little independent corroboration of any of it, that it's a tremendous amount of "nobility" for a teensy little island, and that Tancarville himself has claimed noble titles for himself and his family members, and had at various points Wikipedia articles for themselves as "nobles." That degree of flagrant self-interest set off all my alarm bells a year and a half ago, and I'm wishful of some independent, disinterested genealogical authorities to sign off on his credentials before I put faith in them.  RGTraynor  14:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm a web marketing professional. That gives me a pretty good nose for detecting commercial intent and attempts at using Wikipedia as a marketing platform. The maltageneology.com site looks like a walled garden. It's not a reliable source, but it's been cited many times in Wikipedia. This certainly looks like link spamming to me. Jehochman Talk 14:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, the plot thickens. I took a peek at your cleanup article list, glanced at the first one chronologically, Maria Said. There's an [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maria_Said|AfD]] on it, and it turns out to have been created by one Vassallo5448, which just happens to be strikingly close to Charles Said-Vassallo, a/k/a Tancarville, who is a family member of Ms. Said. And whaddaya know ... Vassallo5448's first edit was on September 25th, three days before Mobile historian's first edit. This may go a lot farther than we thought.  RGTraynor  14:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
(whistles softly) While you gentlefolk are at it, take a gander at Vassallo5448's contribution list. Those edit summaries, right out of the gate, don't look to me like a Wikipedia newbie's.  RGTraynor  15:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've pointed out this new information to Checkuser. Could you consider doing two things, which I can help with:

  1. Create a WP:SPI report where we can consolidate all the evidence for easy future reference.
  2. Consider making an group AfD nomination if any articles on the cleanup list look like they are non-notable.

Best regards, Jehochman Talk 15:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the contributions of the newly discovered account, and decided to block it. Jehochman Talk 15:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll start slogging through the list. Part of the problem, though, is that a lot of the articles Said-Vassallo has worked on over the years are perfectly valid articles about Maltese locations and politicians; he just keeps inserting their alleged "nobility," with his website as the invariable source of the same.  RGTraynor  17:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Which end are you starting on? I'll start at the other and hopefully meet somewhere quite near my starting point... Since my actions precipitated this I might as well muck in on clearing it out. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Eh, just pick the top one on the list. As I'm going down the list, I'm stripping out the suspect sites from the links, and glancing at the edit histories to see what elements our friend Tancarville shoved in. In three cases so far, the articles were orphaned and/or solely sourced through maltagenealogy.com, and I've AfDed them.  RGTraynor  01:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Aaaaand ... finished; I've wiped all references to maltagenealogy.com out of articlespace. I've left them in talk pages, user pages and XfD discussions.  RGTraynor  12:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I know. I managed just the one removal, and otherwise found your username in the edit histories... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Mm, check this out - it's the first one I've come across explicitly challenging Said-Vassallo's scholarship: Talk:Earl_of_Dundee  RGTraynor  14:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Only two edits by that account, too. Also notes Tancarville as other editor, even those comments are not signed. Passing strange. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, it looks like our friend is back at it with User:Nemesis029, a new account whose edits to date involve vandalism and edit warring on the Maltese nobility article [11][12][13][14] and tinkering with my user page [15].  RGTraynor  20:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears that someone else has been convinced of the link, and has indef blocked the account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI block

Thanks for this. I happened upon it just as I was about to log off for the day.The user probably would have gotten away with it if they hadn't changed the same stats multiple times. Not so sneaky after all...Cheers again, --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 14:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Good on you for noting it at ANI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

My talk page semi-protection level

Go on ahead and change the protection level of my talk page for three months. My RFA failed. The nominator withdraws the nomination..--Zink Dawg -- 00:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I'd opened a SPI on it just so that there is a central location given that the paperwork has been all around the place, and shortly before I did, CU confirmed it was Naadapriya. While I was away, you helped get some more evidence, which was also material to the investigation. I'm very grateful for your help (as always). :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Tone it down?

Yo, LHvU. As an ACE coordinator (and, incidentally, a fellow Cla68 admirer), I wonder if you would consider reducing the temperature of hell you've given Mr. Z-man here? I'm not sure it's warranted given that he does not seem to have made any appraisal of Cla68's history specifically. A gentler rebuke might have a better chance of convincing, and less likelihood to open old wounds and entrench divisions. Cheers,  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers guv'.  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that it did any good, though... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention - Gorizont (newspaper) article

Thank you for your attention to Gorizont article and my interaction with Bc. Forgive me for long correspondence with Bc but I really need some help here. User talk:Betacommand/20091101#Gorizont (newspaper) confirmation links were removed Thanks in advance.--Михаил Дмитриев (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any blame can attach to Betacommand for his tagging - as he said, different people do different tasks in building the encyclopedia. Removing tags also does not address the possible problems, unless the concerns are dealt with. It would probably be best to find some content editors who will help you resolve the issues raised - perhaps some of those who speak Russian, who can check the sources? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Persistent Vandal

Hi! Again! This IP:- User talk:195.195.28.4 (Kirklees College) has recently been allowed editing priveleges again, after a 12 month Schoolblock. Regrettably their education has not improved and vandalising Wiki Articles is again the standard recreational agenda. Is there any chance you could put them back in detention for a further 12 months? Richard Harvey (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The recent stuff is pretty minor, and they self reverted the last bit of vandalism, and haven't vandalised since the last warning. It is likely that they are going to do something stupid pretty soon, so let them do it and then we can close them down for another year. Any block now couldn't be more than a week - since AGF means we have to assume that it is different individuals/class than last time. Give them the opportunity to do something really daft. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of your post

I have removed this, as it's simply not true. If you repost it, could you please make sure you write it so that it's entirely accurate, with diffs if you're making allegations. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 20:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You removed content that indicated my perspective on a case, on a third party page? Okay, I shall go find supporting diffs. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
It was factually inaccurate e.g. I was never sanctioned over abuse of admin status in disputes involving Cla68, or anything close to it. The whole thing is the same old poison that you've been going on about for, what, three years? All it serves to do is blacken people and get everyone pissed off with each other, and the things you post aren't even true. For god's sakePlease give it a rest. SlimVirgin 21:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I tried to make the above slightly less aggressive. I don't mean to be aggressive, but it truly makes me feel literally nauseous to see this kind of thing being posted again. There has to be an end to it, surely. That's all I want to say about it. I'll be happy to email with you if you want to discuss it any more. SlimVirgin 21:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
It would be better to state that in a comment underneath the post rather than removing it outright. As such, I have reverted your removal, and noted your disagreement with the information stated by LHvU. See this. If LHvU decides to remove it, he is free to do so, but it's bad form to modify/remove posts by other people. --Deskana (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Cla68's RfA is going to come up as a major issue in his candiacy, and a major concern for the electorate. I believe that any perspectives on it, so long as they are discussed civilly, are in bounds. Any alleged factual discrepancies made can be argued about as they usually are, but most of what LHvU has written is his opinion on the incident. It is perhaps, a bit abridged and confusing for the 3rd party reader.--Tznkai (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I am going to remove it, for now. This for two reasons; as SV says, my claims should be supported by diffs - I shall find those that I feel support my contentions (Mantanmoreland is going to be easy!) and only include comment that I feel is so supported. Secondly, this is CLA68's ACE talkpage and my support for him is such that I would prefer to not have "bickering" on his pages. If I can find diffs to example my interpretation of events, then other parties can respectfully differ in their viewpoint or present their own diffs and arguments.
Lastly, although it seems that I am again butting heads with SV it is the case that I am trying to present CLA68 as someone whose non adminship is the result of a historical event which disallowed him from getting those flags - and I am minded to do so because two individuals who have posted ACE support/oppose rationales noted CLA68 as being a non-admin and thus an unsuitable candidate. It wouldn't matter who may have been responsible for causing a passing RfA to fail, - only that it was done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for removing it, I appreciate that. I've struck through some more of my comment. I apologize for steaming in aggressively. SlimVirgin 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

IP block

Hey there. I was about to block this IP for six months - if you look at the contribs, it's a static IP who likes to vandalize Chicago- and baseball-related articles. You blocked for a week, which I think is too short. Whaddya think? Tan | 39 21:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You have obviously looked deeper into this account than I did, and I am content for you to vary the block according to the evidence you have gathered. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Just wanted to check. Reblocking for six months. Tan | 39 21:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for applying a bit of common sense by blocking Ted Didlio. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The other admin didn't do "wrong", just had a different interpretation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Suspect Sockpuppets

Hi! I think the following list of Tiscali IP addresses are used by the same editor, due to the nature of the vandalism edits to the same article, Kirklees College, which is virtually the only article edited:-

Is it possible to put a range block on IP's if they are found to be the same user? Richard Harvey (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. Tiscali does not allocate addresses to area's, but on a first come first served basis. Block an ip address for a year and you could be blocking 364 potential editors who had nothing to do with the vandalism, block a range and you multiply the effect. Possibly the solution would be semi-protection of the article; are there many non vandalism ip's editing the article? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Please don't mind me stumbling by, but the ip just seems to want to remove what they consider to be uncited content, I have just looked at the citations there and I also can't see where the information the ip is attempting to remove is cited from. Off2riorob (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
What uncited content are you refering to! The information in the article is that which was on the Deswbury College article, prior to its merger with the Kirklees college article, after the two colleges became one. There was no problem with the content prior to that. Additionally there are cited references on the article and the content removed also contained a reference! You will also note from the article history that another Admin has also reverted the attempted deletions on more than one occasion. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, you understand what was going on more that me, the fact that there was no problem before does not mean it is ok now, the IP clearly is commenting in the edit box what his problem is, take the last edit from the IP this one with an edit summary of...(Reference items used are not satisfactory evidence for claims made in article.) , the ip is clearly saying what their issue is and I have had a look and agree with them, can I suggest if you want to continue discussion about this article, I am open to that but suggest that we do it on the Kirklees talkpage and not here. Off2riorob (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

re User:HarryAlffa page

Adding it once and then reverting once after discussion at AN/I had been resolved is not an edit war. All I did was place an accurate template on a page of someone who was blocked indefinitely, which is not a violation of policy. Administrators are just regular editors with extra tools, not overlords with special rights to issue blocks to people they're angry with, or to place templates on pages (or else that template would be locked down and available only to admins). After Sarek's second revert of me, I ceased reverting and discussed it on his talk page instead. Now I have dropped the matter entirely. NThen here you come some 7 hours later issuing threats on my talk page to block me? If you want to be a tough guy then just "abuse your sysop privileges", block me and get it over with already. I can find other things to do than edit Wikipedia. Do people really wonder why articles like this [16] are being written? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 06:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Hi, could you undelete User:DuncanHill/Cornwall type localities as another editor has said he would find it useful? Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The link is now blue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting turn of phrase

" . . . copper sheathed Jimbo"? I wish I had said that first. Bielle (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean? ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Whenever it was raining very hard, my grandfather would look outside, and say, "It's coming down like a cow pissing on a flat rock." I've always thought that a particularly interesting turn of phrase. -- Dampish Hamster
You missed a trick there, didn't you? When your grandfather was outside it invariably was not raining hard - you could have made a fortune as a weather forecaster. Not so much as a provider of folk wisdom, but you cannot have everything... LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I love a larf... Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't leave in a huff - leave in a minute and a larf... LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

RfD question

I was pruning my watchlist, and I discovered that Frank Joseph Haas is a redirect via merge to Grand Lodge of West Virginia#Lawsuit. The bio article was created solely from the content of a New York Times article on a lawsuit Haas filed. A short while later, it was decided to merge the content and create the redirect.

That merge was over a year ago, but the content it points to has since been deleted as UNDUE (as a 2008 lawsuit it being the bulk of the article was felt to be not representative of a group that dates back to 1863). Is the redirect therefore eligible for deletion, even though it was from a merge? MSJapan (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My first response is - ask a few more other editors, so that you get a consensus. My take would be that even though the merged content has been removed, Frank Joseph Haas might be a valid search parameter leading to Grand Lodge of West Verginia - and also while it has been removed from the present article it remains in the edit history. Redirects are cheap, and so keeping Haas as a simple redirect is a valid action. Further, was the decision to redirect via merge the result of a AfD discussion? If so, then it is likely that a new discussion is needed to delete the redirect... Lastly, while the redirect exists there is little temptation to create a "new" article with the same information. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe it was via AfD, but I think "redirects are cheap" is good enough for me to leave it as-is unless I find something a little more major that would merit its removal. MSJapan (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay. If it wasn't an AfD article (which should have been noted in the history somewhere) then it can be WP:PRODded should there be reason found to delete it - unless the reason isn't clear cut and then it is WP:AfD, I'm afraid. Truly, the best likely result is to allow it to remain as is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Trying to get Freemasonry to GA...

One of the things that somewhat irks me is that Freemasonry is a main article for not only a category, but also an entire WikiProject, and yet it's not even GA. I'd like to try again, but there's a "polarity problem" - it seems that we're either overcited or undercited (which I'm not too sure how to fix, because gioing either way doesn't actually solve the problem). Moreover, people take issue with "Masonic" sources (but where else one is going to find copious amounts of reliable information I have no idea). Now, there are plenty of areas where material by the group is acceptable to explain the official positions of the group, but is there a citable policy on that, and again, if we have no other sources, how do we solve the problem? MSJapan (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a difficult circle to square, but I would suggest you look at Wikipedia:Primary. From what I gather, detail of Freemasonry history, ritual, current status is generally published "inhouse" - either by a Masonry related publisher, or by the specific Lodge. Such primary sources may be used, but very carefully - for instance, content quoted must be acknowledged strongly as being cited from the source it is describing, so you should write, "According to X Lodge, they have been in existence since DATE ('reference "History of X ' by X publications)" rather than "X Lodge has been in existence since DATE ('reference ""History of X')". The first clearly shows the information comes from the primary source, while the second may imply that the information comes from an independent source.
The best that may be hoped is that the primary source is quoted by a secondary source, even if they also reference that they are relying on the primary source - put together there is some indication that the primary source is considered reliable enough to be onward quoted. This may mean that a secondary source that is not sympathetic to Freemasonry can still be used to validate some information, providing it is a reasonably reliable independent publication as far as the detail being cited is concerned. Even what might be considered controversial or sensitive content may be so referenced - if it is said, "According to Grand Master Lodge X, the word "Jahbulon" has not been used in any Ritual since the 1980's (ref etc.)" then even an "expose" publication - that is published by a reputable source - that repeats the claim can be used, even if the secondary source goes on to rubbish that claim. The secondary sources subsequent claims are unimportant, in that they then become a primary source for them (the same process can be used, if the claims are to be included in the article...), but they do independently note the claim by the original source.
I would also suggest that you look at some other articles that largely exist in a self sustaining universe, and see how they approach the problem. I think I may have seen you in Manga/Anime related articles? Is it possible that some of the genre's exist in a fairly insular environment? Perhaps there are instances there where primary sources and limited secondary sources are used to provide a reasonable degree of verification?
Finally, there may have to be an acknowledgement that there are not sufficient secondary sources to permit the main project article to get to GA status. If so, then it is the Projects decision whether they will continue to substantiate as much of the original source material as is possible or to allow it to stand as is - with the taint of it possibly being considered as being biased.
I don't know if this helps much - you might wish to take the advice of some content contributors, who may have faced similar difficulties. Best of wishes in your endeavours, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:Syjytg

I must say I am rather disappointed in the decision to un-ban a convicted (in the sense of being proven) socker, who created many socks to make a point about his non-complience with Wikipedia rules and regulations, and would rather engage in edit warring rather than conflict resolution. I wish the ruling can be reversed, but that won't be fair to anyone, and sets a bad precedent as well.

Is there anything we need to do, or we need to be aware of? Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 06:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The editor showed remorse for their actions, which they also acknowledged, and they have two admins to keep an eye on them. Per the WP ethos they get another chance to show they can edit collaboratively. If they return to old, bad, ways then they get indef blocked sooner rather than later. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Banned editor continuing to come back to Wikipedia partly to harass

User:Raven in Orbit was banned from Wikipedia due to his consistent defamatory accusations about fellow Wikipedians -- calling editors pedophiles and pedo-pushers, all because he does not grasp the difference between it and ephebophilia (for whatever mind-boggling reason). He additionally has a specific "hate on" for me, as though I am some pedophile, despite my contributions to the Pedophilia article and comments on its talk page clearly showing that I am in no way a pedophile and am very much against pedophiles. My edits to that article and talk page show that I have consistently combated actual pedophile-pushers, and yet Raven in Orbit treats me as a pedophile villain.

Though Raven in Orbit was banned from Wikipedia, he has come back to harass me twice now. Once seen in this link, which was reverted by editor Legitimus (also seen in that link), and now more recently in a discussion on my talk page you happened to be involved in. I see that he has even edited his user page to state defamatory remarks about why he left Wikipedia.

What should I do about this person in regards to Wikipedia? Luckily, I have not experienced any email harassment from him. If I have, I missed it. But I could stop the email harassment if that was going on. There does not seem to be anything that I can do to stop this harassment regarding Wikipedia. But as I stated to Legitimus, " I am beyond tired of this troll, even though I have not heard from him in months. I do not take well whatsoever to being called a pedophile or a pedophile-pusher."

Any help you can offer on this matter would be much appreciated by me. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I took the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; it seemed to be the best place to take it out of the other options given by Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry that I am not available as I might be - I have no internet at home presently, and little access during the day. I trust this was resolved at ANI; but I will hopefully be available should there be any recurrence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as you know, the matter was taken care of (for now, anyway). And thanks for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

98.67.61.88‎

Thanks for blocking this user. The user's editings to WMAZ-TV will need to be admin reverted. An anon tried to revert and only got the last edit, there are several edits that are vandalism and I can't revert them. If you could, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomerTalk • 21:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am uncertain what an "admin revert" is, so I simply found the last good version of the article and did a nul edit (adding a space after a heading) to get it to a pre vandalism condition. I think non admins can do this also. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
When I said "admin revert", I was meaning a revert you can do with tools. I should have explained that better :) Thanks for reverting, much appreciated :) - NeutralHomerTalk • 22:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, the admin rollback? Since there was intervening edits I don't think I could, but editing a clean version is an easier option anyway, providing everything after is edit warring or vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that was it :) Sorry, my brain is all scrambled from this medication I am on for my cold (Robitussin with Codine...whoo!). You are right, alls well that ends well :) Thanks again :) - NeutralHomerTalk • 23:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

'tis the Season

Happy Holidays to you and yours...--Buster7 (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And I suggest...

...you spare me the "helpful" advice and buy yourself a good Penguin dictionary. DocKino (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Tut, tut. Very bad to use such uncivil language in edit summary. Anyway, I trust you're the expert on getting to stupid. (Having fun yet? I got a lot more one-liners in my trick bag, Sporty Spice.) DocKino (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you contemplate the diff. Care to entertain me with any more poncy lectures, mate? DocKino (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Fools seldom differ. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hello. I see you have blocked User_talk:84.236.3.2, and if I'm not mistaken, I think you blocked him/her for removing content from their own talk page. If that is the reason, I think you should read WP:REMOVE, which states that removing content from their user page is taken as evidence that it has been read. The only thing users may not remove from their talk page is block/declined unblock templates while they are blocked, and this IP hasn't been doing that, so if I am correct on the reason you blocked him/her, I think he/she should be unblocked. Thank you. --Hadger 19:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. I looked at their contributions and it appears that this IP has been blanking sections. Sorry about that! --Hadger 19:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
No worries. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Spamlinker

Hi, Would it be appropriate to block this new editor:- MarkSykesPhotography? All his edits are links to his own photography website, hosted on zenfolio.com, one of which was a reversion of the removal of his first link to the website. Richard Harvey (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not without some evidence of an attempt at discussing the situation with the editor, and then warnings if appropriate. It would be best to assume good faith of the editor, and to open a dialogue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I have just placed a message regarding the reason for removal of the editors links on his Talk page. Taking a closer look at his website I note that it does appear to fall within the criteria of a commercial website, not a non commercial one as per his edit summaries, due to the inclusion of an advert for prices to buy the photo's directly from him shown here. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

False Sockpuppet Accusation

Hi Less, sorry to break the perma ban I had to request myself in order to be left in peace by certain persons and bother you again, but some poor soul has been wrongly accused of being a sockpuppet of me, by a couple of "the usual suspects". This is not fair, it's just a slur on the user concerned, and on myself, there wasn't even a proper sock check run...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Zeraeph/Archive

User:Alamanth had nothing, whatsoever to do with me, and this is the first I have heard of him/her, today, check the actual pathways and I feel sure you will find that out. I have no sockpuppets. I also REALLY think it is time someone put a stop to User:Penbat's more abstract capacity for equal misinformation, he is filling up psyhology articles with left of field nonsense, most of which is, at best, a considerable distortion of any source he cites, and, at worse simply made up off the top of his head.

This is horrible stuff, targetting a totally innocent stranger just because they challenged him signed - The REAL Zeraeph --109.79.193.159 (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

PS Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas, Z. I think email is the better way to request this - but I will ask for a check on behalf of Alamanth. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought about email, but the best way to clear Alamanth, and prevent anyone else being similarly targeted, is to jump up and down and make public noise about this abuse (which is, BTW, abuse of ME too, which is also very wrong on some planets). I have already suffered too much myself around here from people brushing stuff under carpets. If it helps at all I'd be happy to private mail you my Irish landline for geographical verification. Of course, when Alamanth's ban is lifted, and their name cleared I will just go away...Zed --109.79.170.218 (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
The inertia toward "rewarding" banned users is such that private correspondence is best. However, I have made a request on behalf of Alamanth to a CU. Let us see what transpires before you contact me at my email address. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah but see, I am not ASKING for any ban on ME to be lifted...Alamanth deserves to be publicly exonerated after this, it would have been a VERY small thing to check IP pathways properly before insisting they were a "clear sock" of me, but nobody bothered...that's horrible, and I have nothing to lose by fighting it. Which might actually MEAN something to Alamanth, who looked VERY distressed by this insanity. --109.79.170.218 (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I had hoped that I made clear, the reason why I am taking this forward is for the benefit of Alamanth - but it would have been preferable if you had approached me outside of WP space (I know you have my email address). The matter could have been handled quietly, including reviewing all the circumstances. While I am sanguine about corresponding with a banned editor on my talkpage, others might not to be - it would be unfortunate if such concerns were allowed to divert attention from what should be a fairly simple exercise in determining if an invalid claim of socking was made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. Jusdafax 21:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the season!

Xmas tree.svg
Xmas tree.svg
Boule de Noël.jpg

User:The359

He just added some sock puppet looking thing onto my talk page. Can you please tell me what a sock puppet is?(MDesjardinss (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

Oh ok, I gotcha there. I have been for 4 or 5 years been anonymous, but I moved about 5 or 6 months ago, so my IP changed, but thanks for the advice and I wish you a Merry Christmas, seeing it is Christmas already where you are.(MDesjardinss (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

Yo, Merry Crimble! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The vs. "Teh"

Sorry, didn't know it was Internet-speak. Definitely not my day! MajorStovall (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right on all counts. Thanks. --MajorStovall (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

A gerund too! Will wonders never cease. BTW, on another subject, in the discussion above on my page, we discuss a Pakistani politician whose page was vandalized. It appeared to be an attack page, so I marked for speedy deletion. That was an error, because it was originally a conventional biography, but it was turned into an attack page six days ago and nobody noticed! Amazing, isn't it? He's a tribal leader in Pakistan. It could have set off WWIII, I kid you not. MajorStovall (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I know quite a bit about the sectarian/tribal rivalries revolving around Pakistan/Afghanistan/Kurdistan and how the tensions arising can spill into real world conflict; I have already done my share of peace keeping in matters relating to the Pushtan people. Re the tagging of the article, what is important is that you alerted other editors to the problem who were able to find a quick resolution. An article was saved, and you learned to look at the article history to see if there was a better previous version. As long as you act in good faith and learn as you contribute then I see no reason why people will not be looking to you for guidance in due course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Hiberniantears/AdministratorCommunityFeedback and Wikipedia Review

As one of the guys around here who I respect the most, could I ask you to post User:Hiberniantears/AdministratorCommunityFeedback over at Wikipedia Review? I rip the site quite a bit, but I realize there are still a good number of very solid editors who post there who's insight I would appreciate greatly. No worries if you decline, but I'd appreciate the wider feedback and I don't have an account over there (I just tried to register to post this myself, but I don't meet the email requirements). Hiberniantears (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

... and has a WR account. Okay, will do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
... and done. If you have any comments about my choice of terminology when linking they are too late! LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL... Thanks man. I owe you one. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. I just read through the WR thread and appreciate you posting it. Doesn't look like there's any interest over there, but I figured that I'd give a critical site the opportunity to critique me. Eva's comments were, strangely, the most and least helpful; I'm glad I'm still a relative unknown, and also surprised to see who she compares me to as I actually consider myself to hold views closer to her own. Part of my reasoning for soliciting views from WR is that while I consider Wikipedia to be a pretty nerdy thing to participate in, WR takes things a step further by creating an area for disenchanted nerds to complain about the behavior of fellow nerds at an online encyclopedia. While that's a pretty funny thing to mull over, I also recognize that a good number of contributors are over there because they believe in the potential of what Wikipedia could be (or should have been). Whether we ever figure out how to make this project really work is an open question, and when I finally get bored and move on to something else I would like to at least be able to throw my exasperated hands up in the air content that I at least tried to do it right... whatever "it" is. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I would give it a few days. I also suggest that you search for you username in their facility - you may wish to brace yourself... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh... Whoops?!

Sorry about that. What a poor introduction~! I apologize, I've been trying to catch up on uploading photos since the Christmas break.. mea culpa regarding the photo. Glad you caught it, and thank you for behaving with such courtesy. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No sweat... Maaaaaaaan! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Anon 69.159.197.246

Hello, I noticed that you blocked that anon Special:Contributions/69.159.197.246. However, can you please extend the block period? The anon is a sockpupper of User:InkHeart (a user banned for abusing multiple accounts), and even admits to it here. For the past few months, InkHeart has been avoiding blocks to make unconstructive and vandal edits to numerous articles, and other sockpuppets of hers were blocked yesterday. Thanks. Ωphois 21:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no indication that they have previously used this address. Per the newer template on the page, this is a Bell Canada ip - so they are likely to be able to get a new addy soon enough. Either we will need to play whack-a-mole with the socks, or you will have to see if there is a small rangeblock that will stop her by making an WP:SPI. The third option is to request semi-protection on pages she is interested in. The last two need to take in account whether innocent editors will be inconvenienced. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
One of the most recent anons that was blocked has been blocked before. I'm not an expert on how the IP reroutes work, but since she is reusing it instead of just using another (which would be easier to hide her identity), this would suggest to me that she may have a limited number of IP's available to use. Ωphois 21:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
If you can create an SPI report with a list of the known ip addresses then a Checkuser might be able to determine a small range with minimal collateral damage ("other editors getting blocked"). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I'll look into that. Thanks. :) Ωphois 21:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You've earned this...

Choices, choices...

Here you go, as promised. I'll take the one on the left. MastCell Talk 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tis only fair - no admins got themselves involved in the few sections previously that I responded in... Um, isn't this beer supposed to be cold? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The beauty part about Country Club Brand malt liquor is that it tastes just as good warm as it does cold. MastCell Talk 04:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Abdurrahman Wahid

In relation to your full protection of Abdurrahman Wahid, don't you think that perhaps semi-protection is more appropriate, when it is obvious that it is IP editors who are doing the vandalism, e.g. [17]. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to semi-protect the article, so that established editors can continue to edit the article. It does seem a tad unusual that an article relating to a current death is fully protected, when we know that WP is used as a source for info, and there are editors who wish to add this info to the article. Can you please review. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 13:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I considered semi-protection, given that the initial spate was indeed ip editors, but thought it best to err on the side of caution. I have made clear on the talkpage that if there is consensus to vary or remove the protection then it should be enacted by any admin, so perhaps the best way forward is to get that consensus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Mate, the vandalism isn't that bad, and it's entirely from anonymous IPs. Full protection is a bit much. It means that only admins can update the page. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Just got back from changing it to semi. Have at it! LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Actual policy

Consensus -- the way things are done and have always been done on Wikipedia, period/full-stop -- and common sense are that indefinitely blocked users who are, you know, actually blocked permanently get the {{indef}} tag only, and that indefinitely blocked users who are actually blocked permanently don't get memorial pages or their wishes for self-advertising/spam granted. Would care to point to some policy, guideline, or finalized discussion that indicates otherwise? Or shall I have to dig up the policies, guidelines, and/or finalized discussions that restate the obvious? --Calton | Talk 14:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Calton please be civil. 67.232.52.146 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This matter has been resolved. Thanks for commenting, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Reality check: "IAR" does not stand for "Invent Arbitrary Rules". All of your hand-waving in defense of an indefinitely-banned user obscures your attempt to rewrite policy -- indeed, common sense -- and if you, as you claim, were really interested in "doing your admin duties" you would either actually do so or get a check (at, say, WP:AN/I) on whether your non-standard and rather-tortured rationale made any sense. Does WP:RBI ring a bell?
Also, perhaps it's not a good idea to be thanking long-term, Joe-jobbing vandals like the above IP -- check the edit history of User:Calton and User talk:Calton -- and given his intrusion here I think I suspect who he is.
Once again, unless you can point to an explicit policy- or guideline- or discussion-based exemption for this indefinitely-banned user, you're out of line and doing the banned user's work for him. --Calton | Talk 23:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Again, Calton, please be civil. You came off a block for incivility a few months ago. please keep a cool head. Thanks. 67.232.61.98 (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thx

... for your swift action concerning JoeDG and his creator. Cheers & Happy 2010! - DVdm (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

HAPPY NEW YEARS

You just have to imagine me being drunk shouting that in your face. (Note, I'm not drunk) but I wanted to send you a happy new years video which is coincidently my the song from which I got my username.! Happy Wishes to you in 2010.[[18]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Jerry could certainly play. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Whereas I am arguably drunk, that does not prevent me from wishing you all the best for the forthcoming year. Many regards. Rodhullandemu 01:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, the proof of the 5th decade - partying in front of a pc... LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

86.44.47.43

While I agree that the IP was somewhat uncivil, many of the AfDs linked were indeed speedy/snow keeps. JBsupreme is involved in an ongoing ArbCom case because of similar issues— not on music but on software AfDs. Please advise the IP to submit any evidence to the ongoing ArbCom case, either to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf/Evidence or by email if he doesn't want to register an account. Strangely nobody mentioned this on WP:AN. Pcap ping 06:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

my stupidity?

I should receive an award for attacking that horrible "coldplay" rock group, whose popularity must be based upon hooking up with McDonalds or Holiday Inn, because that seems to be how music groups get attention in the USA, if they go to bed with some big corporation.

That other editor had the nerve to revoke my edits of a Russian female musician even though he admits limited musical knowledge. Somebody needs to remove the tags from that listing and leave it alone. It would make me very mad to see that listing removed, as some have threatened, that would be the ultimate sin. I mean, this whole notability issue is just senseless. "coldplay" is notable for selling records, not quality, and somehow Wikipedia needs to pay more attention to quality, less attention to whether or not a rock musician sells a lot of t-shirts at a Wal-mart in Iowa lol Hell, if Wikipedia lists an artist who only sold one CD, and that CD is high quality, something far superior to "coldplay," then I say, list the musician who sold one CD, and erase "coldplay."

You seem like you might "get it," you seem like somebody who might have some common sense, although your photo sure is strange.

MostFamousPeopleUSA (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Coldplay are British, and were recording before becoming big in the US (and then the UK). It is only because their music appealed to the masses that they grew so big - it is not a reflection on their (lack of) musicianship, just how popular taste can promote something beyond the mere sum of their abilities - and thus something large organisations wish to be associated with. The fact that you do not like them is irrelevant. As far as WP is concerned, there are very many sources to verify how successful they are in record sales and award winning.
As for (the unsigned female artist), the paucity of reliable sources only indicates that her talents are not recognised as widely as they might. That is the fault of no-one, least of all the artist. Who knows, perhaps she is fated to be recognised only when she is dead? Or perhaps next year? Or never? What you appear to misunderstand is that Wikipedia is not the vehicle to promote her. We report on those subjects that have already garnered publicity, fame, renoun, etc. and generally these are the subjects that the readers search for.
The stupidity of which I wrote, I would add, is that by violating the policies of WP you caused yourself to be removed from the discussion. Had you been more open to discussion, more willing to work with people, you may have found that one or more of them would have assisted you in producing the best possible article for the subject - instead you have found yourself in a position where no-one is interested is assisting in the building of the article, and all by your own efforts. That was not the wisest of actions, if you are determined to get a good article created.
Really, you seem smart enough so you should recognise the truth of what I am saying; working with other editors will reap rewards that fighting with them will not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I will think about what you said. I removed the name from the discussion because it was never about any particular individual, it was always all about "coldplay." Oh, and you should know that "recognised" is spelled incorrectly, it is spelled with a "z."
MostFamousPeopleUSA (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it is by the famous people of the United States of America, but the British people spell it with an "s" - another example of why one definition does not mean it is the only one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Cornwall, United Kingdom
The Brits are generally dumber than the Yanks, they are basically fish and chips goobers, while the Russians are the smartest of all, especially in all cultural things. You seem like a good guy although your picture is strange as hell. With a face like that, I would not want you dating my sister, hell, I wouldn't want you dating my german shepherd LOL
MostFamousPeopleUSA (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a strange edit for someone just coming off a block for personal attacks. (Let alone the implication that there might be people who you would want to date your German Shepherd).   pablohablo. 10:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I shouldn't think that came close to a personal attack - and wasn't intended as such, anyhoo. It made me laugh - especially the Russia vs. Brit argument. What can you say, us Brits build cars like Rolls Royce and Aston Martin, Mother Russia gives us Zlin and tractors (with trailers!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
There's this German Shepherd that keeps leaping over the fence and crapping on my lawn! And he's got this dog!
In all seriousness, I don't find that you just said offensive but I do find it oh so wonderfully hypocritical given that you were annoyed with me for making a gentle prodding of Russia (and England as well in a (clearly failed) pre-emptive strike to stop you from getting annoyed about "racism" or some such garbage). I have said on numerous occasions that I like Russia and it's people. You failed to listen to that, cherry-picking "insults" from my posts and now ranting about Britian yourself. As I said, perhaps you need to "grow a thicker skin before you leave the safety of your LAN." --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Falcon, I admire this Mark Slater because he seems to be a real man with balls of steel. He's more Russian than he will ever know, something you will never understand. He knows, he really knows, while most never come close to reaching a true understanding. He may have the strangest face I've even seen on this planet, but he has a brain, a very powerful brain, and that is often a rare thing to discover here at Wikipedia. What I find most laughable is that so many Wiki editors stick tags on certain listings and threaten removal but they rarely act on their threats. They usually only throw out a listing if they get offended personally, like little girls who get so upset because a boy throws mud on their face. LOL Falcon, you can remove info, you can stick all the tags you want on Wiki listings, but those who know what real music happens to be do not care. They know the difference between mediocre Coldplay and quality. They have learned the true reasons why material is thrown away or tags are applied, and they know that in most cases, those kinds of actions are meaningless. I've seen listings here on Wikipedia that have had the same tags for years, and nothing more ever happened. In fact, when I see a listing tagged, that tells me that the listing is probably of such high quality that certain jealous editors felt they had to deface it, so it deserves even more tribute. I speak the Truth, Falcon, and I know you don't like to hear the Truth, but there it is.
MostFamousPeopleUSA (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
(wiping away tears of laughter) You haven't read a word I've ever said, have you? I don't give a damn about Coldplay. Never have, probably never will. And I'm not even going to get started on the rest of that gibberish. However, this essay is something you may be interested in. Anyway, I've been advised (though I was going to do it anyway) to ignore you in the future as you are a troll. Good day, sir. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Falcon, you can run and hide but you will never have the balls that God handed to Mark Slater, and maybe only a tiny fraction of the brains. I don't know what you look like but I suppose that if you only have two eyes, a nose, and mouth, compared to Slater, you may be ahead of the game in the looks department. BUT...he obviously doesn't care about looks, since he's got the balls and brains of an enlightened warrior, something you will never have. You only wish I were a troll, so that you can demonize me, and consign me to a lower level of species, like some revolting gargoyle hanging off a church. I am not a troll, I am a defender of Truth, and yes, I read your parody of Truth written by some jealous Wiki editor, but there are absolutes in this Universe, Falcon, and the one absolute you cannot argue against is that Coldplay is the ultimate in trite mediocrity, while most unsigned musicians are far far far superior in musical talent. That is a piece of Truth you cannot accept, it is too politically incorrect, and instead, you will place tags on good listings, and revoke smart edits. Do not construe this as a personal attack, since I do not address your religion, politics, or ambiguous sexual orientation.
MostFamousPeopleUSA (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Posting in legendry thread.--Caesar Augusta (Hail Caesar!) (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thanks for coming back and reconsidering my block. I know you didn't have to so I do appreciate it. Betty Logan (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not prematurely close the discussion I have started

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I take it blocking me for 10 minutes and leaving this nasty gram on my talk page was your response? It would be nice if you can offer me some justification for the block that makes reference to policy... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have blocked me and immediately run off somewhere. Please drop by my talk page when you are back. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My block

I did not agree with you blocking me and not blocking others - neither did I agree with you getting upset about me removing the IP identifier on my talk page, and I certainly didn't agree with you removing my right to edit my own talk page (neither did the admin who gave me that right back) - more details are on my talk page, I would appreciate it if you went there and explained a few things.

thanks 119.173.81.176 (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

editor you blocked for three months back again inserting same information again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.209.186.241 You blocked him for three months warning him it'd be longer if he did this again, which of course, he now has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_Empires_II%3A_The_Conquerors&action=historysubmit&diff=336551546&oldid=334302778

Previously he used various IP addresses, and is doing it once again, word for word, same exact information re-added in two articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.233.6.101 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_Empires_II:_The_Age_of_Kings&action=history

He used two other IP address to do minor work on it, including the 76.209.186.241 address you previously blocked and warned, which had put the bulk of the information there before. [19]

67.233.6.101 76.209.186.241 125.60.241.96 Dream Focus 06:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the new ip for 6 months. I suppose that the article is heavily edited by anon editors, so semi-protecting it will be inadvisable? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there are very few edits at all. The history page shows things that have happened in months past. Most of the IP edits are from the one spammer. And you only blocked one of the three accounts he is currently using. 76.209.186.241 was the one previously blocked, but not blocked now. You blocked 67.233.6.101 for reinserting the exact same information as the old account. He used his old account to edit that information slightly, showing he is aware of what that account is doing, it certainly the same person. I think page protection against all IP editing would solve this problem, since otherwise, once the block expires or he logs in with another IP he'll just keep this up once again. Dream Focus 03:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Since I have "resolved" the issue for the time being, I feel I can only semi-protect the article when it next gets vandalised. If you let me know when it happens I will act upon it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Happened again already! [20] and [21]. Both articles had the removal of the information undone by a different IP address. Judging by how many times the person did it last time, I really don't think they'll give up until they are no longer able to try. Dream Focus 01:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Semi protected for 3 months. We will have to see if this is just a 13 week break, or whether sprotection will need to be re-instated in April. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
You only protected one article. The same IP reinserted the exact same information into two articles. [22]. Dream Focus 04:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent block

Hey, just wondering why you didn't inform User:Cs32en that he was blocked? Or why not fulling protect the page, or block User:UrukHaiLoR for edit warring as well? Grsz11 19:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You show me where it says there is a time limit on admins noting their actions, I will be back to you in the allotted time for a full response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It was a good faith question, no need to act like a prick, and I see no. comments. at. the. noticeboard. Grsz11 20:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Look. Now. This time I didn't stop to answer my orange message bar. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For your good work.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It may not be sufficient - there was a four day gap previously and I blocked for three. However, if they do return to blank the same article then there is no need for further warnings; take it to AIV noting the prior block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandals At Gate

User:Elmer Ellsworth has twice added Latin vulgarity to the Spanish Inquisition article, which I have undone. I tried to report it at the "Report Vandals Here" window but I probably messed it up. Since you seemed to handle the previous timed request, I thought I'd ask if I did it right. I'm terrible with tools!--Buster7 (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.........--Buster7 (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation against User:UrukHaiLoR

I have filed a sockpuppet investigation against UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs). This account very likely is a sockpuppet of Top Gun (talk · contribs), who has been blocked indefinitely for "lying about sources, in addition to a whole host of other sins".  Cs32en  02:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi again, I also suspect that another account, closely linked to the case, but most likely not identical to UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs), belongs to a user who has used a different account before, and who may have undeclared alternate accounts running. (User:Top Gun, an account seldom used for edits on article talk pages, very likely is the sockpuppet of yet another user, not a sockmaster.) However, I can't find conclusive evidence for this other account. Are there admins who have looked into this area more closely, and might have more experience in discovering evidence?  Cs32en  03:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

my block

I was surprised to see that you do not with to comment on my recent block.

You were wrong in preventing me from editing my own talk page (another admin gave me back that right

You were wrong to complain about me removing the IP identifier (I had already brought this up on ANI and had been told I could remove it)

You were wrong to block me and not block any of the other IP editors or registered editors for edit warring.

I thought that once you realised your mistakes, you might try to explain your actions, or apologise to me - even when I have been blocked in the past, the blocking admin has been polite enough to explain the block and answer any questions that I had, you just remove any method that I had to communicate with you and force me to email other admins - when you removed my talk page editing ability due to your own mistake.

I deserve an explanation and I am looking forward to your response. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

EMI article renaming

Someone unilaterally renamed the record company EMI to EMI Group Ltd. Of course, the company has been known for decades as EMI and is the best known EMI as there is an EMI disambig page. Can you check this out and revert the renaming if necessary? Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have asked the editor who performed the move to point to the consensus, and to reverse their actions if there is none. I will keep an eye on the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The consensus is developing that the article should be renamed back to EMI. If the editor who renamed it doesn't do it, you are freely encouraged to do that yourself. Thank you. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi LessHeard vanU, Is there a way to change this back, please? Hundreds of articles are effected by this move, as we'd have to change them all to avoid re-directs. Help please! Thanks. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
EMI is now back at that page title. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

AFD

I'm not tooe sure if this is not allowed but one of the articles I authored is undergoing AFD. Sister Vincenza. I have outlined why she passes single event notability. Right now we seem to be split between merge and keep. Can you weigh in one way or the other? Also on a side note..[[23]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

216.100.93.130

You banned Das Ansehnlisch (talk · contribs) the other day. He is now evading the ban by editing under the 216.100.93.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This is typical behavior on his part. Can you ban the IP? Also, would you add a notice to his regular account page about his block/ban evading so future admins will know about it if/when he is ever considered for reinstatement? Thanks a million. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Update - I should have mentioned that he is making the same edits to the same articles as past edits at his named account and other IPs he has used to evade past blocks. Same Beatle articles, same Moody Blues articles, same basic edits... I added a notice to User talk:Das Ansehnlisch. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I can and will block the ip for a short while for block evasion, but I should note that Das Ansehnlisch is only indef blocked - meaning that I or another admin could unblock on our own initiative. Banned editors require consensus to be unblocked, which is much more difficult. I suggest that you file an WP:SPI report if there are further examples of possible block evasion; the people there are more familiar with ip addresses (and can Checkuser different accounts if need be) and can issue more appropriate block lengths. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
My bad; I thought banned = indef blocked, but now I understand there is a difference. Thanks for the help with this. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Part of the sysop remit is dealing with suppletees subteltees subtulteez subt.. nuances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like I made a bigger mistake; the IP vandal is apparently not Das Ansehnlisch. The edits are similar, but there is a clue that I missed the first time; the 216.100.93.130 (etc.) editor follows similar disruptive editing patterns, but he/she edits a set of articles related to The Moody Blues as well as a set of articles related to The Beatles. I will report the IP vandal to WP:ANI if he returns after the block or on a different IP. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you!

We don't really know each other, so I hope you don't mind me bothering you! I was hoping someone could provide a little clarity for me, because I'm second-guessing myself. I placed speedy tags on the pages ABC on TV and The Living Model EP, because as far as I understand, they're eligible under CSD A9. I was just kinda wondering if you, almost definitely having a better understanding of deletion policy than me, could maybe help me stop worrying about getting yelled at for doing it wrong.  :x Audiosmurf / 22:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm an admin - part of my remit is to be "bothered" by other editors. The fact that I seem to have repeat requests from some contributors means that either I am not an idiot, or they are willing to have another go at seeing if my idiocy has improved...
The requests are fine; without looking at the rationale, because you placed them in the belief that removing the content will improve the project then you did the right thing - even if someone disagrees with your perception, it is all done with the best intentions. Nothing wrong with that, at all. Per the rationale, if I had not looked at them per your request but had come across them as an admin I would have deleted them. No claim of notablity (if the bands are notable, it does not mean records by them are inherently notable) and nothing - such as placing in reliable charts - to otherwise indicate notability. Since I have reviewed them at your request I cannot act, but I am sure a sysop will.
I trust this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! That's all very reassuring.  :) Audiosmurf / 23:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Requesting unprotection on TOTSE

Hi there. Last February, you semi-protected this article indefinitely, as it was coming under a great deal of attention from anon IPs making unconstructive edits. This was mainly due to the fact that the website in question had recently closed, and the anons were competing with each other to add their preferred 'successor sites'. However, in the year since then, it has received little attention from vandals, and the issue seems to have died down. I believe that protection should be used as sparingly as possible, and removed when it's no longer necessary; and it looks to me like that might be the case on this page. I ask that you unprotect this article, at least for a trial period; if the high level of vandalism returns, it can always be protected again. Thanks in advance. Robofish (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Have at it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Camp Chapman attack again

Hi LessHeard vanU,

Another problem has emerged at Camp Chapman attack. On the face of it, it appears to be a content dispute. Phiont (talk · contribs) does not want that the Afghan security director at the base is counted as killed in the attack, while I think that he should be counted as killed in the attack. (According to reliable sources, he was injured by the blast, an an American shot him dead as he thought the security director would be part of the plot. So the security director would not have been killed if the attack would not have taken place, so he was killed in the attack, as a result of friendly fire.)

In this edit summary, Phiont writes "Cs32en, please stop listing the base security director among the attacker's victims. He was not killed by the bomber." The Phiont account was created on Feb. 4, 2009, made five edits from Feb. 4, 2009, to March 3, 2009, one edit yesterday, and one today. The edits display a somewhat greater knowledge of Wikipedia than what one would expect from a really new user. Also, the fact that the account was dormant for about one year looks suspicious. However, there may be too few edits for a successful SPI. I have started a section for discussion at the article's talk page, but I wouldn't be surprised if the discussion does not lead to a consensus.

Do you have an advice on how I should proceed, both at the talk page and with regard to the account Phiont (talk · contribs)?

Regards.  Cs32en  19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As for the content, I think it entirely arguable that the base security director was killed as a result of the attack; no attack, no dead director - regardless of the specific manner of death. As for the recently active again account, the fact they made an edit means their ip (and therefore their general location and other details) will be discoverable. If you think it is UrukHaiLoR, then re-open the SPI request to include them. If you think it is someone else, open a new SPI. If you do not know who it is, then you are on trickier ground unless you can find out anything more by discussing the issue with the editor. There is nothing wrong with asking why they had previously been moribund, and are now editing as long as it is in a good faith manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice! While I had written "killed in the attack", Phiont's edit summary seems to imply that I would have written "killed by the bomber". So the communication style is similar to UrukHaiLoR's postings. However, I don't have enough evidence for this, and Phiont may well be a sockpuppet of a user who is tag teaming with UrukHaiLoR. I'll see what I can find out.  Cs32en  21:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Advice regarding User:Cs32en?

I would like to seek your guidance in a dispute that I have been engaged in with User:Cs32en. [Disclaimer: I am new to the Wikipedia dispute resolution process]. I am asking for your guidance as you have been involved in adjudicating prior issues with User:Cs32en and thought that I'd seek the advice of someone familiar with the dispute resolution process prior to writing up a soporific bill of particulars.

My perception is that, in discussion with User:Cs32en ,I was the subject of an attempt at war of attrition, with a view toward making me go away, rather than an honest attempt at analyzing this issue(s) in dispute and the applicable Wikipedia policies. Where a person less stubborn and bloody minded than myself might have thrown their hands up in disgust, and gone off to find a better source of entertainment than Wikipedia editing, I elected to persist. It is my perception that User:Cs32en, not acting in good faith, simply wasted my time.

My goal is that such sanctions, as are necessary, be applied to User:Cs32en so that others will not have their, potentially productive, time wasted nor driven away in disgust from participation in Wikipedia. How should I proceed? Need I write-up the soporific bill of particulars? Deicas (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The question is, are you the only editor as far as you are aware that is having this difficulty? If you are, then the issue is how to initiate a change in the relationship between you and Cs32en. The best way might be either to go to WP:MedCab and find somebody willing to mediate, or perhaps to WP:3O for a review of the disputed area. If there is another editor in good standing that has the same or similar problems with Cs32eh, then likely the best way forward is to open an WP:RfC with them on Cs32en and invite other contributors input. Only after initiating these dispute resolution methods and failing to find a way forward need there be a bill of particulars placed before the admin noticeboards. It should be noted that in every dispute resolution process the activities of all parties are liable to be reviewed, so as ever there is the issue of how strong a case you feel you have in respect of all these matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Deicas (talk · contribs) has removed a {{Verify credibility}} template from a reference to a YouTube video in the article 9/11 Truth movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs) has restored the template, and Deicas has removed it again. I have then restored the template, and Deicas has removed the template again (some back and forth in between). I have discontinued the dispute, and Deicas got what he wanted, as the template is now removed from the article. Deicas should realize that he has removed the template against the position taken by two other editors, and that sanctions on his account would be appropriate. I have also indicated to Deicas that I do not intend to continue to discuss the issue with him. As the issue is currently settled, with the content preferred by Deicas prevailing, I do not feel under an obligation to do so. I also find it strange that Deicas does not mention the substance of the issue in his posting.  Cs32en  22:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I considered it likely that these comments sprung from a dispute, but per AGF I responded to the questions raised. It is also the reason why I noted that all parties actions are reviewed in resolution processes. As for the template, there is the option of deciding consensus for the use or not of the template at the article talkpage - once a consensus, supported by policy, is indicated then actions against it would be vandalism. I see that two parties support having the template against one who doesn't - so who thinks they can bring policy to bear upon their preference? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

Hi Mark. Would it be possible block this obvious vandalism only account? See: Picklecloud. Richard Harvey (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Indef'ed as such. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Image problem.

Since I trust your judgement, although I know you don't take much part in image deletion discussions, could you take a look at this and tell me whether you think I'm out of order. Sorry if this screws your weekend, but I do despair at those who will not look beyond the surface. Cheers, and belated Happy New Year; I have to go back to hospital for more X-rays next week and am still on antibiotics and painkillers, but manage to be here in the absence of anything better. Regards. Rodhullandemu 00:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point - the image, taken from a single record sleeve, is the only known representation of a band lineup (the most commercially successful/artistically regarded) available, and is used simply in that context. WP:FUR applies. The nominator is only going on the basis that FU is solely in respect illustrating the product, in this case the single and not the band. I think it will need a thoughtful admin to rule on this one - but I think you will "lose" if you cannot make your case stronger (since it is easier to go with the one size fits all argument of the nominator). I think I may advance a further argument or two, but will defer to your knowledge of the band. First, in the case of bands of that era picture sleeves were not universally applied to all copies of a single (they were and are with albums, but not singles); were copies of that single released in plain or other design sleeves? If so, then that picture sleeve may not be considered as the only representation of the artifact (best if there was a plain sleeve in quantity). Secondly, the image within the sleeve does not represent the specific material contained within the bag/grooves - but of the band that performed that music and other material, not present on the record. The purpose of the image is to advertise the band, who play the music contained within the package, and not specifically the music. On this basis, the Fair Use of the image relates to the band shown as the music contained in the picture bag (since the music is available without that image). Now, if you can fit those thoughts into a coherent argument for use in your discussion then please feel free - it may cause a few tremors in the FU guidelines, because it opens a general argument whether record sleeves depicting the artist are true representations of the music contained or a representation of the artist(s) involved in the music - or not, if you are Mini Vanilli. Does this help? LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
It certainly gives food for thought, and certainly I've encountered a handful of bands whose notability largely depends on having a specialist fanbase within their own genre, and although they satisfy WP:BAND, their promotional material is only available through fansites. However, if other editors are really not going to take my word for it that this image is irreplaceable, then I really don't want to be here any more. I really should be addressing my efforts to finding a safe non-violent place to live, with a secure income, a warm environment, and enough food to sustain my existence. FUR is intentionally subtle, whereas NFCC isn't, and I have no time for those who will not think. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 01:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Beale

There is so much puffery, that is the problem, and he is not a philosopher, not in any sense. This has been the problem throughout, that there is no realistic appraisal of him, no secondary sources who discuss him, and this despite all his efforts. If he really were notable, and given how keen he is to have a WP article, he'd have been able to arrange proper coverage for himself in a reliable source by now. But he hasn't, and that signals against notability, in my view.

I'm really not that keen in getting further involved, because the whole thing is so unseemly. The one issue I do care about is that he not be described as a philosopher or placed in that category, because that really would be quite false. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to determine whether notability has been established, try this test. Copy it into your userspace, and remove every single reference that he wrote himself—regardless of whose website it was published on— and every single edit that depends on those references. Remove everything that he authored, and see what you have left. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Musical aside ...

If someone was writing a Wikipedia Western (musical) ... and there was a character vaguely similar to LessHeard vanU ... what might be an archetypal musical theme song for said character (and preferred hat color, etc:) Proofreader77 (interact) 19:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Easy. Shot by Both Sides. (Light grey Fedora). LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Most excellent! Data input accepted. Matrix calculations proceed swimmingly ... Proofreader77 (interact) 20:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change probation

As a currently editing, fair-minded and uninvolved administrator, could I ask you to pay some attention to the ongoing edit warring, brawling and mutual accusations here? I think administrator action is long overdue. Multiple parties are overstepping the bounds of civil discussion and editing. --TS 22:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have gotten myself involved in the User:GoRight matter, but I shall take a look nevertheless. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I've agreed to "referee" your suggested solution, in that I'll watch the dispute and report infractions. Hopefully everybody will be on their best behavior and there will be no further problems. The reason I went to you is that you cannot reasonably be accused of being in collusion with the other admins who have enforced the probation. It's always a good idea to import fresh thinking. --TS 23:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. As noted on your talkpage, I have been deliberately overzealous as regards the tariff and its universal application in an attempt to break the cycle of violation and accusation. I hope it works. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

  • gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
  • ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Mentoring of Das

Do you agree? I just want the thoughts of the blocking admin before anything is acutally done. Thanks--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

From a review of their talkpage, it would need somebody who will act upon any nonsense such as "cannot rely on books..." - WP does, per verifiability, not truth, and DA's problems stem from their preference for their own "truth" over published information. I do not see a way back to editing, mentored or not, while that mindset persists. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Coldplay Expert did not ask my opinion, but I will give it anyway. After all, I've done a lot of cleaning up after him.
After Das was blocked last September, I wrote a long note on his talk page that I think qualifies as informal mentoring. Prior to that block, I tried to help him understand how things work on WP, but that didn't work. I was hoping that the one-month block would convince him that he was in the wrong and should listen to the advice of other editors. No such luck; he replied politely, but that was the only good sign. His reply was short ("Thanks John") and did not indicate whether he would take the advice. As far as I can tell, he has not followed any of the good advice he has received from other editors, nor has he responded to any block with an indication that he accepted responsibility for his actions, understood why he was being blocked, and would change his ways in the future. That's a very bad sign. He has also evaded a block using an IP address to make the same disruptive edits that triggered the block.
Suffice to say that he has not given any indications that he "gets it" or even that he wants to get it.
I don't think he should be allowed to edit articles until he acknowledges what he has done wrong and describes how he plans to change his behavior in the future. He's got to convince us that he is starting to get it. That will affect the mentoring program: the mentoring would be restricted to a discussion between Das and the mentor until Das demonstrates he's getting it. I don't know if there are prior examples of such an approach. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok then. I guess we'll just have to wait.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Question from GoRight

GoRight (talk · contribs) has requested that your attention be brought to this section, as they are currently blocked.

On an unrelated note, thank you very much for stepping in at the climate change probation. Having too few admins patrolling the area runs a high risk of losing touch with the norms of the community in general. I hope to see you around again; same goes for your talkpage watchers - an uninvolved opinion - admin or not - can be invaluable in cutting to the heart of a dispute or finding novel compromises. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnpie

Cornish pasty.jpeg The "pasty of good humour"
For obvious reasons   pablohablo. 12:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Excellent - and I happen to be consuming the said delicacy as I write this! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

SockPuppet: TheStig and IP address

IP 86.14.32.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) recently voted in a straw poll at Talk:The Beatles, voting the same as a previous vote by TheStig118 (talk · contribs), the only votes (so far) in favor of the proposal in question. As it turns out, TheStig118 had previously replaced an autosigned signature with his own on a previous edit by 86.14.32.100. This strongly suggests that 86.14.32.100 is a sock of TheStig118, and the poll vote by 86.14.32.100 was a deliberate attempt by TheStig118 to influence the outcome of a poll via a sock and thus distort consensus.

Can you look into this and impose a block on TheStig118 if you find that the evidence indicates that 86.14.32.100 is a sock puppet of TheStig118? Thanks. — John Cardinal (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have checked the whois and note that it is classified as an "assigned pa", meaning it resolves to only one address. I also note that the contribution histories of the named account and the ip address have a very high correlation - mostly in regard to the band Queen (and apparently the question of nationality makes an appearance with the ip). Along with the case of the account signing a comment made by the ip, I think it conclusive that these two accounts are used by the same individual. However, I am not inclined to block presently - since the editor has not been warned for violating WP:SOCK. I suggest that you give the editor an only warning, and the opportunity to strike one of the "votes" cast. You might note that such actions diminish the strength of their argument if they are prepared to game the process to bolster their viewpoint. If they do not retract or strike one vote, then you would be permitted to note that the two accounts are strongly suspected of being linked at the vote (you might link to this discussion). You might also consider linking to this discussion when you warn the editor. Blocking is the last resort, and miscreants should be warned and allowed to correct their violations in the first instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Mark, thanks for your clear and appropriate advice. TheStig118 has now protested on Talk:The Beatles that it was his brother who voted from the IP. I am skeptical, but given your advice above, and assuming good faith, should he be warned at all? Should he be asked to strike the vote? I believe his response changes this from a sock puppet case to a meat puppet case, but I am not confident that I know what the rules are. My inclination is to write polite entries on the talk page of TheStig118 and the IP address advising them that to avoid any appearance of meat puppetry, they should either avoid taking part in the same talk page discussions (etc.) or make sure they disclose the relationship when/if they do so. What do you think? — John Cardinal (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I would point TheStig118 to WP:BROTHER and note that where there may indeed be more than one person sharing a pc/ip address that for the purposes of WP:SOCK they are treated as one person. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

?

I'm not sure of the point of your remark. The reason for my username was that I received an email from someone I know who said they looking for 'an editor with a background in philosophy'. So the username was a sort of joke. Hope that explains things. Editor with a background in philosophy (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Cornwall/England/Cows

Link is Wikipedia:WikiProject Cornwall/Guideline, have posted it on the blocked editor's talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Duncan. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi LessHeard vanU, since you issued the block on The cows want their milk back (talk · contribs) maybe you could take a quick look over Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FootballPhil and consider blocking FootballPhil (talk · contribs) too? Please don't feel obliged to do so however and feel free to ask me if you want more evidence before blocking them. Regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I have a prior interaction with FootballPhil, and therefore decline the invitation (although I would be hugely amused by a claim of involvement in blocking The cows owing to a prior dispute with FP...) If it is so obvious a DUCK, then the first passing sysop will press the buttons soon enough. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, no problem. Kindest regards, SpitfireTally-ho! 21:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

1RR?

You said Now, I have only been reviewing the edits since the above ip started complaining of the removal of their comments but I think that all parties including the ip have exceeded the 1RR restriction for content that is not vandalism. I'm not sure which 1RR restriction you're referring to - can you clarify this, please? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that I am not alone in my belief [24] William M. Connolley (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I would, however, be happy to support GW and t:GW being on 1RR restriction, though. Indeed I'd be happy for the Cl Ch probabtion as a whole being extended to 1RR William M. Connolley (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Best I respond/apologise at the enforcement page... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

On a practical matter, the global warming talk page has been cluttered with off-topic nonsense, personal attacks, and discussion of the topic rather than improvements to make to the article for some time now. Your ruling leaves the clutterers feeling bold and I expect things will get worse before they get better.

In view of that, I would welcome your thoughts on how we are going to get talk:global warming back to containing only or mostly civil discussions on how to improve the article. --TS 23:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw the problem in that discussion initiated on how to act within the talkpage as being for the betterment of the article - even if the proposal was going nowhere it should not be deleted. As for the application of WP:FORUM and WP:TALK I am guided by WP:TPOC - comments should not be deleted by anyone other than the author unless in major violation of applicable policy. To resolve the problem then of clutter that might fall under FORUM and TALK is like that of WMC's suggestion of a general 1RR under the Probation - it needs to be discussed and consensus formed and then if appropriate added to the Probation wording. Since I have been asked to do some enforcement then it beholds me to stay out of that discussion - as exampled I am not always reliable on quoting the stuff I am acting upon, your chosen deity knows what nonsense I might suggest including in a rewording of the probation... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know much about the edit-warred item. Even the edit warriors' usernames--the two registered users you blocked--are unfamiliar to me and I've been watching the global warming pages for a couple of months now.
The clutter I'm talking about specifically is:
  • Complaints that the article is run by a Cabal who are pushing a point of view.
  • Discussions of the topic instead of how to improve the article.
Typically these have been handled by collapsing the clutter or closing down the irrelevant discussion with archive templates. But this is less than optimal because there's nothing to stop someone starting it up again.
Currently two sections in the talk page, More IPCC Fun and Games and NASA says 2000-9 was warmest decade on record; 7 disappearing glaciers, probably shouldn't be on the talk page at all. The first is accusing the editors of the article of being a Cabal of shills for the IPCC, and should presumably be handled through dispute resolution. The second is just a rant (which I don't fully understand) about global warming.
I wonder if the best things to do would be to bring the most egregious instances up on the enforcement page and see if uninvolved admins can formulatea strategy for handling this problem, which is quite severe on the global warming article.
Many other sections are unproductive, but there's not much wrong with that. Typically somebody wants his favorite political talking point incorporated into the article, and takes a long time to get the message that due weight doesn't always allow that in a science article. Those sections may be (as I've said) unproductive, but they're not as seriously problematic as the off-topic clutter. --TS 00:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


Here's a thought. WP:TPOC does say that archiving of unproductive material is permissible:
  • Refactoring for relevance: Archiving material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection WP:TPOC#How to use article talk pages). Formerly it was not uncommon to simply delete off-topic posts, but this has led to disputes from time to time, and it is generally better to move such threads to an archive page. It is still common, and uncontroversial, to simply delete gibberish, rants about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article) and test edits, as well as harmful or prohibited material as described above. Another form of refactoring is to move a thread of entirely personal commentary between two editors to the talk page of the editor who started the off-topic discussion.
That would seem to cover the collapsing and in-situ archiving approach which has been common on talk:global warming for some time. I would appreciate a comment from you encouraging such practices and delineating where in your view this is acceptable. --TS 00:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
My thinking;
Complaints regarding "The Cabal" shouldn't be anywhere near a article talkpage, unless there is a specific complaint regarding an action by a supposed member. General "Cabal" complaints, if there is any indication of an underlying problem, might usefully be directed toward the enforcement pages. For the rest, quickly archive them into a "WP:TALK/FORUM" subpage/archive - a bit like I have done on this page for Abtract/Freemasonry related discussions - with a warning to the new editor that such discussions are outside the remit of the page and that continuation violates the disruption aspect of the probation. Egregious posting of such clutter to be reported to the enforcement page, and warnings and sanctions applied. My feeling is that if we can be a bit relaxed about the first time somebody runs up against the probation, but severe subsequently (and let people know about it) then a lot of the low level warring will dimish. I am also hopeful that people will turn to discussion rather than warring if they know that they will be removed from the debate for transgressing the probation - it was put there for a reason, after all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC) I posted this to your previous comment - but yes, moving clutter into archives with a rationale and a warning against further instances seems to sit within... well, guidelines if not policy. Should the probation be clarified to reflect this? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I think if you posted something like the above into the edit warring thread on the enforcement page, it would be useful advice for all to follow, and could--subject to discussion and refinement--form the basis for a regular process. Let's face it, this user talk page is a bit out of the way, and the situation on the global warming articles is in danger of becoming arbcom-level serious, so the right word now would help us all to develop a more suitable discussion page ethic that would encourage calm discussion. --TS 01:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I would be happy to have it as the basis of a discussion, to enable a consensus to form on how WP:TALK/FORUM may be applied in GWP related talkpages. You have been seated on the pages longer than me (and there is some discomfort evidenced about my actions - see section below) and are likely to be better positioned to link to it and promote some dialogue. I think there may be one or hopefully two voices wanting to put their thoughts up on the matter in 12 hours less time elapsed, too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Improper block(s)

I'm a bit pissed about your blocks (already mentioned above), especially the one of Kenosis. Kenosis has been with us for 4 years, has over 20000 edits, many in contentious areas like gun control and intelligent design, without coming into any serious conflict with Wikipedia policy. Now you block him while under a misapprehension about 1RR and while ignoring the (cumbersome, I know) process laid out in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, which, among other things, states that Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. While I'm not a process wonk, I think you overreacted here. I would suggest that you retract this block (and possibly the McSly block, albeit he does not seem to mind to much), or at least ask for review at WP:ANI. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that an experienced editor is sanctioned under the probation existing at Global Warming and related articles, but I have been asked as a previously uninvolved admin to review and act in a matter that has had a lot of recent problems regarding edit warring, pov pushing, wikilawyering and the like. I agree, and have noted on each editors page, that I was wrong about there being a 1RR restriction but every editor had edit warred, and two of them under at best a misunderstanding of WP:TALK/FORUM. A long term editor such as Kenosis should be aware of the general policy regarding edit warring, regardless of the clearly noted subject probation, and might be expected to not violate the policy. I note that you have not mentioned the ip, who might argue that their understanding of WP:TALK and WP:FORUM was correct and that they were restoring the status quo - and were also not warned. I am not so unfamiliar with the ongoing pro/skeptic GW article matters to realise there is a perception of a problem regarding the balance of application of policy, and how those who are able to rely on consensus to allow their edits are yet able to conduct themselves less than optimally with those whose views are regarded as the minority. I regret that I am unable to allow consideration on who stands where in their point of view relating to the article to influence me on my application of policy upon those who trangress it. This might make me unsuitable to police these matters in the opinion of some or even many - there are avenues under which such concerns may be addressed and I shall of course provide my rationales at such places and conduct myself according to the consensus arrived there. Presently, I am acting to the best of my ability to my understanding of policy. In answer to your point, perhaps in future I will warn editors of their continuing and repeated violations of policy - I will look to further input by other parties in this instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Long, not responsive, sorry. If you use the probation as a justification, you should also use the probation process (which explicitly requires notifications and warnings). Regarding the IP, I couldn't care less. I've not seen any useful contributions from this IP range, and given that the concrete IP does not persist and that the editor is anonymous, the sanction is effectively moot. And that is the basic imbalance in "enforcement". Sock (several hundred, and, as far as I can tell, exclusively on one side of the debate) and anonymous IP editors (at least 95% on the sock side of the debate) are effectively unsanctionable. They have not invested anything into Wikipedia or their reputation. Currently, if 100 socks manage to bait one scientifically literate editor into a sanctionable action, that's a win for the socks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The above examples the problem, or at least the perception of the problem, relating to Climate Change/Global Warming. One side has the backing of The Truth and the others are simply trolls and socks - scientifically illiterate ones at that. That, I suppose, is why a probation was placed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I have not, so far, made any comment on content issues. 550+ confirmed Scibaby socks are a plain fact. Your characterization, while intended ironically, sadly is not too far off from observed reality. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

As stephan says, your blundering here has not been at all helpful: [25] is part of the consequences. I think you should back off from all enforecement of these sanctions: you are clearly to busy to actually read the rules and find out what the sanctions actually are. We really don't need behaviour like this William M. Connolley (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Kenosis_and_LHVU William M. Connolley (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I have responded there. Of course the best way to ensure that sanctions are not misapplied is not to create the conditions by which they are considered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Good block. Pro-AGW editors have been removing comments from talk without consequence for far too long. It's one reason I stopped trying to edit there. It's good that something is finally being done about it. UnitAnode 05:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) It appears that these block were not used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, but to punish users. We worry it seems about biting the newcomer but what about the long time contributor? Warning definitely should have been given first. Even vandals get warning and one often sees pages full of them with no blocks given. In an effort to not loss editors willing to contribute and add scientific balance to controversy article it might be a good idea to send an apology to all involved. Cheers from an uninvolved scientific mind.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This time it's not Freemasonry-related...

There's an article on Brandon Saller, the drummer for Atreyu. None of the other members have articles, or if they did, they have been redirected. Saller's article is sourced to only one source that doesn't meet RS (MySpace), so I redirected it, stating "Article has no RS, and no substantial edits since recreation. Redirecting back to Atreyu band article". That redirect was undone, with the statement that "article looks fine, and that's not a reason to redirect it".

I have no idea what the rationale is here, because I see a case of an unsourced article on an individual where the article's existence assumes inherited notability. The former precludes an article, and the latter violates policy. In any event, could you look this over as a third party in case I can't resolve this with the editor myself? MSJapan (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I A7 (no indication of meeting guidelines) 'd it. It has no claim of notability outside of being a member of a band - which itself is likely marginal per WP:MUSIC. It stated that the drummer has an ep worth of songs they may release later this year... Notability would be an ep that makes a major chart. I suspect that some fan will recreate the article in due course - let me know when they do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Information.svg Hello LessHeard vanU! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2,784 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Gillian Hiscott - Find sources: "Gillian Hiscott" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What on EARTH is 7107 playing at???

I've just seen the most bizarre request at User talk:7107delicious. He says he has emailed you, but from the top of your talk page, I see that he might possibly be sending it to your old email address. So I thought I would draw your attention to it. If you do get the request, and it is a valid reason, could you let me know what it is please(if it isn't private)? I'm baffled as to what reason there is for renaming the acount and then blocking the new one! Stephen! Coming... 13:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I will look at my mail this evening (UK time) - I am not at my home computer now - and see if there is anything more to add. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I got it. He wants his account renamed, and basically to WP:RTV. I explained that accounts cannot be renamed, but explained that deleting the userpage and subpages and courtesy blanking the talkpage would remove "tainted" versions from Google and other searches pretty quickly. I know that RTV is supposed to be for people in "good standing" but I think that WP needs to move away from shaming ex editors and think that it is a reasonable thing to do for someone who, despite some concerns over their contribution history, really only made one really big humdinger of a mistake. Let them go away and grow up, and not let these things dog their online presence. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the decision, mostly because I haven't taken the time to look at the background. I am curious, however, as to how someone can be "shamed" by poor behaviour under a name that has no connection at all (unless, of course, there is a connection) with them as a person. If the behaviour embarrasses them, then whether or not there is a recod on WP, that embarrassment is in their head already and nothing done on WP can change that. If they are not embarrassed, and there is no way the behaviour can be traced to RL, why the need to disrupt WP's record? I am obiously missing something here. Thanks for any thoughts you are prepared to share. Bielle (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
If you open their talkpage you will note a comment directed toward another account ending with 7107 - I suspect an earlier account. This leads me to consider whether the 7107 is something they have in common with their other internet nicks - I have more than half a dozen identities ending with "vanU" for instance, some of which are on public sites. Whether the numbers relate to something in their real life is speculative, but they may have reason enough not to draw attention to this account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Should the person behind the persona return to Wikipedia, is there then any way to link the behaviours should they be repeated? Is there a way to link them even if you don't delete the history? And does the deletion of this account's history then delete comments made by others in their contribution histories? (These are just questions, and are not meant to challenge the decision for this specific user.) Thanks. Bielle (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I've had a request in the past from a user to block them for one second, and put a note in the block summary linking back to an old account. The reason was that they had been blocked in the past for a misdemeanor, and he started afresh with a new account. However, he wanted at some point in the future to apply for adminship, so he felt it important to have it declared (albeit hidden from most people's eyes) that he was once blocked under an old name. Stephen! Coming... 10:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The editors talkpage would not be deleted, just blanked. Primarily this is so a record is maintained of the account to comply with WP's licensing, but it would also be useful in that the edit history remains intact and can be compared to an account where there is suspicion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your patient responses, LHvU. I missed "blanked" completely and inserted "deleted" in my head, in part because any editor can blank his/her own page at will, and thus why would you be involved as an admin, and in part because I wasn't thinking. (I'd give a lot more weight to the second explanation, but the first sounds better.) You say exactly what you mean and I read . . . who knows what? :-) Bielle (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
The difference of me saying exactly what I mean and the recipient understanding what the hell it is I am wibbling on about is entirely a matter of human vagueries (and that is not a spelling mistake) ;~). I intend, unless there is contrary consensus here or on 7107's talkpage, to delete the userpage and courtesy blank the talkpage at the end of the weekend. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the laugh. It's -18C here tonight and every bit of warmth helps. Bielle (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Accused of disruption.

Would you take a look here. I have a person that is trolling my page. [[26]]. To my knowledge I do not know this person but they saw fit to come and make changes to my talkpage. I have asked them to refrain, just need a extra set of eyes to play referee. Hell In A Bucket (talk)

Very well said

[27] cuts to the heart of the issue. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  • It would be great if, in the midst of all this other commentary, you would find time to reply to the question on your "recommend no action" comment regarding WMC's latest incivility. Five people have now requested that you do so. UnitAnode 01:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, did my talkpage become an extention of AE/GW/E? LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry about that. It's just a bit frustrating when I see 2/0 commenting everywhere but where several users of very different ideological stripes have requested he clarify his reasoning. UnitAnode 01:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Susan Roesgen

Hi, I requested full protection for this article today and it appears to have been semi d by missie, would you could you please fully protect it for me? Off2riorob (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the above, I cannot see it as sprotected or protected - and after a brief review of the edit histories, any reason to. Are you sure this is the correct subject (I shall review your contrib history). LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, its this Susan Roesgen its been a constant tiresome pointy word revert for a few days. Off2riorob (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is ok as semi, without the unconfirmed they, we may be able to discuss a bit. Off2riorob (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
That is my conclusion - the remaining confirmed accounts are experienced editors, and should be able to sort out a form of wording on the talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread regarding Domer48

Any chance that we could talk directly before I lift the block? You can find my contact information on my user page here. Thanks! Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 17:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

On my way. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)