This is an archive of past discussions with User:LessHeard vanU. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Question.
I know it seems weird, but it just hit me. What is your favorite food? I lika Pizza, French Bread, and lots of tasty stuff. =) - Eugene Krabs (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Um... Are you familiar with British food culture? If I say that my preference is for Indian food, it should be realised that most of the dishes would be unfamiliar with the inhabitants of the sub-continent; UK Indian cuisine is that adapted for the tastes of the population. Once that is understood... Chicken tikka masala (medium hot), with pilau rice, onion bhaji, peshwari naan, and perhaps some chat (the bread, although I find conversation enhances any meal) would be my usual choice, although if dining out in style I would likely choose a pasta house. Why? Do I win a prize? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Why hide the truth behind a smokescreen of civility?
Something sweet with coffee. West bishes to you too!
Because incivility distracts people from the matter at hand. We will spend ever more time on arguing whether Giano was justified than say, establishing a community norm about trying to represent Wikipedia to the media, and the consequences of flouting it. Sadly, this dysfunction is not unique to Wikipedia, but is amplified by its nature.
Wanted to say something, didn't want to feed the quickly pointless debate on Giano's page. Food for thought.--Tznkai (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I found it while looking through the block log as part of my review - I wasn't aware it had been Orlady, although I instantly remembered it upon seeing it. It was a positive experience for me; I made a mistake (within my first dozen blocks), corrected it, apologised, and was pleasantly surprised by the generosity of the response; once I remembered it I knew she would make a good admin, because she has been on the end of a bad sysop action and had taken it in good grace when it was explained. Kudos to her. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
In case this section is being read by other interested parties, this is how a new sysop would prefer to have their first major b(ol)lock responded to. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I must say, I am at a loss trying to understand that block, and find the blocked editor's request, apart from the accusations directed at others which are unhelpful per WP:NOTTHEM, to be entirely reasonable. I would appreciate it if you could comment on his request or lift the block entirely. I am also making a note to that effect on the still-active ANI thread. Sandstein 17:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
This block is completely inappropriate, not only were you blocking the person trying to correct the disruption, you didn't bother to block the person causing the disruption, you also blocked Erik9 2 1/2 hours after his last comment on the topic, so the block was punitive and not preventative. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Giving him every chance, yes. The page had sat idle for about a month until the latest exchange was started by this [1] which should never have been posted, but which served to illustrate that a number of folks are still watching his talk page - including himself. I forget how many months he's been banned now, yet he's still stopping by to see what anyone is saying about him - kind of like someone who's fired from a job and still stops by the factory frequently because he really wants to work there, but can't quite figure out how to fix the problem that got him fired - or even to admit there was a problem. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots12:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, my name is chris, username cutajarc and when i try to edit pages it says i am blocked by you? why i havnt done anything wrong i dont even know you? i havnt even logged into my wikipedia for 1 year and it says i am blocked. why is this?
It is a time ago, but as I recall you had some problems with WP:OWNing an article - and this was your response to the warning of sanctions. Has this mindset changed (noting that you are block evading in posting here rather than on your talkpage)? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Someone else deleted it (unless by "you" you meant "The Ever Lovable Corp of Sysops") several times, and I responded to your comments about continuing as an ip by hitting the block button. Are you now requesting unblock (it doesn't bother me, I will do so if you want 'cos if you start farting around again it is easy enough to reblock) or were you just wanting the info? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The part I deleted was a clear WP:BLP violation. Please see the discussion on the talkpage as well. The user in question has been warned repeatedly (just on different accounts), and have had 6 sockpuppetcases against him already, all ended in blocking the user in question. This is why it was deleted, and this is why there was no warning for the user in question. Siru108 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:COI
I wasn't aware that people who were connected with a station/business/etc couldn't edit the page they are associated with. That one is on me. I had always thought that if they were connected to something that meant they couldn't edit that page. My mistake.
I was in phone contact with the people at WSLK Radio and they apparently think that I intentionally added bad information to the WSLK page (I didn't)....hence why they added the legal threat. I would feel more comfortable if someone else would edit that page cause obviously they don't want me editing it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 15, 2009 @ 21:23
Thanks. I think I will leave further edits of WSLK up to someone else. Dealing with them on the phone and the obvious insult to my Aspergers in their post on my talk page was enough to ruin my day. I might pass off editing to User:Dravecky or someone else. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 15, 2009 @ 21:32
Perhaps you can help on a different issue. This was brought to Swatjester's attention. He said if the user in question continued to add copyright material to the page, to let him know, but Swatjester appears to be offline and the user (Theaveng) is continuing to add the copyright information to the page. Could you take a look, maybe offer a final warning, please. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 15, 2009 @ 21:55
Sure, I can work the rest of it out, I just needed an admin for a warning or block since he was back at it at the moment and Swatjester wasn't around. Thanks for the quick help on both fronts. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • April 15, 2009 @ 22:15
If I'm a bit touchy...
I'm in the midst of final exams and papers, and I'm trying to balance my Wiki involvement with other obligations, not very successfully (I keep getting drawn into things here), resulting in undue stress. Not an excuse, just an explanation. bd2412T16:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note - I don't know if you know about the {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} tags, but they're a useful way to mark a discussion as closed if you don't want anyone else to post in a thread. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I tried to keep my post entirely non-confrontational. It's not my fault he didn't or chose not to read it correctly. I won't comment there anymore because it has proved useless. Grsz1122:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I also believe your post was friendly and in no manner harassing, but CoM is simply not responding - it may be better, as I said, to withdraw for a while in the hopes that the situation will improve. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem is COM is not withdrawing. I don't think it is a good idea to endorse COM's demand that others avoid his talk page, particularly when another admin is essentially saying we cannot appeal to AN/I either. Please see my comments here.[2]
I think it's fairly clear from the thread that he's got a number of users annoyed at him. Either he'll start learning, and the list of annoyed users will shrink; or he won't, and it will grow. And you can guess where the latter scenario will lead, eventually, though maybe not real soon. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots00:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Just one short point which is that Grsz has removed all of my recent comments and discussion with him from his talk page (I only posted there a couple times, mostly asking him not to post on my talk page and replying to his comments). So the idea that I've refused to engage in discussion with him is another preposterous lie (from him) that is easily debunked by reading his talk page history. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
My comment was not in reference to you Less, but to Grsz (who understood it as such and replied before removing his comment) who is depicting me here and elsewhere as unwilling to discuss things with him. This is demonstrably false as his talk page history shows. I have clarified my statement and I'm sorry that it was misunderstood. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
A personal attack upon any user page, of the type you put on mine, is a very fast route to a very long block. You are fortunate, indeed, that you chose to attack me, because I'm tolerant of such things. If I saw you doing that to someone else, I would block you on the spot and that would be that.
To answer what might have been a legitimate question in your attack, I expect a high standard of professional (yes, professional) decorum from all editors of Wikipedia. Including you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I know quite a lot about long blocks, and the rationale behind executing them - since I have now spent some 2 years mopping up after various despoilers of this encyclopedia; and I would expect the same access to process as I provide in my actions - not arbitrary sanctions from the throne of the GodKing, thank you. I have no need to be lectured on what is professional or not by someone who had not entered higher education when I first donned a suit and tie and earned my living. I shall, of course, not "do that again" (a phrase I use with my own children, young man) since there is no apparent likelihood of an legitimate discussion over ethics, or the relationship between "leaders" and the workforce. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
To think the cause of this conflict was a few ounces of bikini wax... Please, slow down for WP:TEA. Let's start a poll on Jimbo's talk page: does this episode belong in WP:LAME? DurovaCharge!22:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's not. The cause wasn't the bikini wax. If you or I or LHvU had used that image, no-one would have blinked. (Except maybe Jimbo.) The issue here is the combination of the image, and the signature. It seems to me to be WebHamster's way of saying - I have the right to offend people. That is what I find offensive. I don't expect people not to do offensive things from time to time, 'tis only human. Sometimes, it's even necessary, for the good of the project. But I am offended that WH seemingly wants to claim that he has a right to deliberately offend people for no reason other than his own pleasure. Regards, Ben Aveling22:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
This sounds interesting. What is it about? Jimbo? Bikini wax? Graven Images of a hamster? All of the Above? In the same room?--Buster7 (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Incident / Aspergers
Thank you for the early unblock. I was diagnosed with Aspergers when I was 10 years old, and bipolar when I was 14. I have always been different and no one has ever understood me. I have been in a psychiatric hospital twice in the last 8 years. Thanks for giving me another chance. Sometimes I speak without thinking and I end up regretting it later. All I ever really wanted to do was become the best Wikipedian I could be, and nothing else. I hope this dispute with DC is over for good, I have apologized to him and I am moving on; I'll never bother him again. I have crossed out everything I said towards him on his page, the Fuel TV page and on the ANI. I am staying away from Fuel TV for a couple of weeks until this cools down, possibly longer. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
I'm glad you're so understanding. So is there a chance of the sysop block on Fuel TV getting lifted, since the content dispute has been resolved? I promise not to edit it for a couple of weeks but as an inclusionist I am against this type of block. TomCat4680 (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
points of principle, pragmatism and a little extra request
G'day LHvU - I'm up bright and early on a shitty monday morning and am catching up with some of the broo ha ha - particularly at Jimbo's talk page. I thought I'd swing by and sort of push the envelope - firstly to confirm that you're taking a principled position, and secondly to try to illustrate why I hope you might be able to see that it's possible for reasonable people to have reasonable concerns about wiki-standards / practice with sexual content. I think, from what you've written, that you'd be ok with this as an image / caption on a userpage? - it's intended to be slightly amusing, a bit of a pun, and communicates, in some ways, a healthy attitude for the project. On the other hand, it's rather explicit. I think your position boils down to 'if it's legal, and in good faith, it's cool with me' ? - I lean towards the other perspective, where I think, on balance, it would be better to keep sexual content on article pages. Although it's not easy, it should be possible to chat about this, no? :-)
Oh yeah - second thing - you're an admin, right? There's a 6 strong unanimous consensus here for an unblock which has been left hanging for far too long - if you've got 10 min.s would you take a look? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The image you have used does have problems unrelated to the comment they are making; primarily, it would be illegal to allow access to under 18 year olds in the UK from business establishments (Newsagents, bookshops, sex shops, and online UK based companies). Secondly, it is aesthetically unappealing - there is no care or regard to its execution, it is poorly lit and (although naturally) posed, badly composed or cropped, and provides nothing beyond the banal depiction of an erect penis (presumably) about to enter a vagina. Next, there is the question toward its use - the comment is (my view, some may disagree) unfunny and not clever in relation to the image; it's "punability" is around zero. Vandal fighters do not "shaft" (i.e. deprive them of what is rightfully their's) vandals, vandals are not necessarily cunts or pussies - and I would take great exception to the concept being aired that cunts and pussies and their possessors are vandalistic in nature than the cock wielder. It's presence on a userpage would, in light of the above, be fairly useful - I would consider (providing it was placed with intent by the account holder) that the person not to have the highest of standards - and I would remove it as being obscene, likely to cause offense, and serving no useful purpose. The image recently discussed, however, is well made, barely if at all graphic (a shaved mons pubis, with remaining genitalia hidden by the posed leg) and has a comment that is both specific to the image and in regard to a political agenda. It is my opinion that there is very little relationship between the two images and their use in illustrating their relative comments.
Despite my antipathy to the image provided by you, I will however allow it to remain on my page. It provides context for our discussion here - my comments in regard to the specifics require the ability to judge (poor bloody reader) for themselves. It is not my habit to remove content that is otherwise suitable for publishing because it is not to my taste.
Wiki is better than sex? A comment that is even more ridiculous than the image.
re Alistair, I would need to review the matter and it is just gone 23 minutes past my bedtime. If it is still open I will look into it tomorrow evening... providing we have not just provided Jimbo with the excuse he may be looking for to block me after yesterdays little flare-up, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
well hopefully by now you're snoozing soundly - but I look forward to picking this up anon.... my reading of your point is that there are some legal issues with this image in the UK - to respond to that, it's probably a good idea for us (the project) to a) have a good talk and b) get some good advice about what constitutes a legal problem - I have no idea, nor expertise, in where the lines are drawn between this image, the shaven vagina, and the cornucopia of other bits and bobs, hobbies and interests on display in various media here, and on commons.
I think you'll recognise the rest of your post as to a degree subjective, and broadly referring to 'taste' - an issue you've previously highlighted as being a bit of a minefield! do let me know if you're not up for chatting about this, otherwise, maybe we can cover some useful ground :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not subjective, the picture is not very good and does not illustrate the comment - and the comment itself is a less than faithful representation of what some contributors do around here, and how they regard WP. You cannot justify it does, since you created it (the combining of image and comment) to argue your point of the non-validity of such usage. However, as evidenced by the good faith edit before this, it does provide ample evidence of how such material does short circuit the cognitive reflex - Arkady Renkov apparently believes "we" are placing the image in my space as some sort of pointy bit of fun (and I am being spoken to as if I were only just out of my teens, again, to boot) rather than to illustrate a discussion of what is obscene and unacceptable, and what is not and therefore a legitimate medium with which to communicate a message. Just because some subject matter appears to shortcircuit some peoples critical faculties (and not only naked humans, but there are political, nationalist, religious, racial, gender, sexuality and likely very many other ones that work just as well on different people) is no basis to remove them. We really do have to allow the considerations of the experts to guide us, and the image that was on WH's userpage has been decreed as generally acceptable by the law courts of the US and UK both (and likely Aus, though you would know better) and that which you used as not.
I suspect you and I will not agree on this; you will not persuade me to your viewpoint, and I don't even believe that I should try to sway you to mine (that is my liberal mindset, I accept your right to your viewpoint regardless whether it tallies with mine) - only that I will explain myself if asked. Unless there is another point (sans piccy, if you don't mind) you wish to raise, I think we are done here... I believe you wished me to review Mr Haines outstanding block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Alister has been unblocked already by Coren. Obviously if anyone wants anything done around here, they only have to ask me and someone else will do it anyway before I can get round to even looking at it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I hope this message finds you well. I wanted to take a moment and discuss the edits for Blair Peach. Firstly, I made a mistake in one area of editing that blanked an entire section of text. I do this, mainly at work, as a means of passing the time. I often get distracted. Regardless, the main reason I edited the page was the concern I had over the mentions of police brutality.
You see, the police involvement is stated not once, but thrice. One time in each paragraph. In this way, it looks as though, to me, that the police are made, or at least assumed to be, wholly responsible despite the ruling of the trial. I would like to suggest that the article be edited to one statement of allegations and the trial, the location of which is of no concern.
I see alleged brutality twice, once in the lead per WP:LEAD and once in the main body - as Peach's notability rests upon the alleged manner in which he died (not the event where he died, and the subsequent riot, which I still feel should have its own article) I do not think this excessive. I am not sure which is the third reference, but if it is Celia Stubbs reaction to the offical finding again I consider this is in context. However, and I made this quite clear on the article talkpage, I do struggle to be objective in this matter and I would welcome any specific points you feel should be raised. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, since you put it that way, I suppose I can see the point. And yes, that was what I referred to. Thank you for your input, and I believe the matter is resolved. Have a good one. Kale Weathers (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Kale Weathers
You're welcome
I didn't think you'd mind me butting in. I didn't know if you were online and so I took a bit of a vigilante stance. Good to know I didn't overstep. See ya 'round Tiderolls12:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Help
Hi! There was a helpme request placed by TomCat4680 (talk·contribs) and I see you've been very understanding and useful in helping them in the past. I wonder if you might be the best person to advise on the right approach for developing the article? S/he mentioned something about not being able to edit the article themselves....? I noticed that they are not blocked, but had been recently. Perhaps you could point them in the right direction, or shed some light on things? Anything would be great. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Seconded; in helping the user (from previous helpme requests), I saw the background on this issue, and really think you'll be the best person to advise here. Killiondude tn'd the helpme tag, saying we were looking into it; the user removed the tn. I then put the tn back, explaining that 'helpme' pinged many helpers, and that we'd get back to himher. I noted you were a highly active user, so hope you'll be able to advice. Of course, I'll monitor and make sure the user gets some response - I'll do whatever I can, but feel that, with the background, you could do it better. Story so far is User talk:TomCat4680#Improve Fuel TV article please. Best, Chzz ► 08:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
And now he's having a bit of a meltdown, including posts at AIV RFPP and AN/I. I've given him a final warning and proposed a topic ban. Acroterion(talk)15:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
This has unfortunately developed rather badly since my post. I have blocked TomCat4680, and noted same at WP:ANI. When the block expires we will have to see whether TomCat is topic banned or not before I am able to help him. HOWEVER, if any other editor would like my help of the type TomCat was requesting, just let me know on this page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Was what a mistake? My few hours, or the six months now applied? I only sprotected while one ip range was on the rampage, so it could be seen if it was only one individual, and since it appears that it wasn't a longer term semi was applied. Does this answer your query? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Advice related to identity of user
Care to offer some advice? I believe a particular editor is using WP to promote himself by editing articles that are indirectly related to him and in some cases by creating articles. Specific example: a play he wrote is being performed at a festival, so he has added an article on the festival that mostly indicates that his play will be performed.
There is some evidence in the person's editing history to suggest who he is, and if so, most of his edits would be inappropriate. The editor knows the rules about this. The editor is problematic for several reasons not limited to the issue described above.
I believe that WP editors are not supposed to reveal the identity of other WP editors, but I also think this editor should not be promoting himself on WP, and should not be editing articles where he has a conflict of interest.
First question is; do the edits benefit the encyclopedia? If they do, then the handling of this matter will require major sensitivity - we need to ensure that the person is aware that WP is aware of what they are doing, and that they need to ensure that they are not violating WP:COI or WP:NPOV. This would entail contacting a WP:Checkuser, so that they can determine - as far as possible - if they are the individual concerned, or otherwise connected to the event(s). If you think it sensitive enough, you can email your concerns to one or two - letting them know that you have contacted the other.
If you don't want to go the sensitive route, or the edits are simply of no real benefit, you can file a request at WP:SPI requesting Checkuser over your concerns. The only difference is that you should not name the supposed individual behind it in the open, but advise you will by email if required. This latter method may mean the concerned editor finding out about it, and you will have to decide whether this is for the best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cup of tea, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Tea somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:WikiTea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I would rather just leave it be. There was no consensus to topic ban you, but neither was there a consensus of no ban - the matter has been left in abeyance. Future events will determine if it will be revisited, so by staying out of trouble it can be quietly consigned to the past. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I did not see an administrator badge on your user page so I wrongfully assumed that you were just an editor toying with the IP user. My apologies. --gordonrox24 (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I liked the suggestion that you made here. Do you have any ideas on how to go about setting this up? ... or is it something you are already working on? Just curious. — Ched : ? 22:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it was something that just occurred to me while reviewing the page and following a response I had already made to a David Shankbone comment - we have an opportunity when we are notified in determining the legitimacy of the notification, yet we also have some duty toward handling the notification sensitively; we have been concentrating only on the deceased editor and the community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not at all familiar with the notification end of things yet. I'm only vaguely aware of the fact that these "tickets" that OTRS deals with, and that it relates to the "Foundation" in general exists. I'll try to study up on that a bit more as I go along. But the bottom line is that I thought your idea of a template was a damn fine suggestion, and unless you object, I'll probably be getting back to you for some more input on the idea. If I'm following your line of reasoning correctly, it could really cut down on confusion, and really help people that aren't that familiar with Wikipedia. — Ched : ? 12:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I would be pleased to help. Upon (brief) consideration, a template much like the {{welcome}} one but directing the notifier toward relevant policies, and how to provide verification and who to, and what they might expect as a response, which could be placed when the news is given would be my suggestion. It would need to be sensitively written, too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
You used a temporary block template here, but they were indeffed. I fixed it for you. I think. Maybe I put the wrong template. :) LychosisT/C14:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
LessHeard vanU, Lychosis has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I don't like imposing on you for this stuff, but I've messed up "revert moves" before. I have no trouble with simple moves, but when there is a DAB page involved I always screw it up and then don't have the tools to fix it. Thanks. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I have to do this slowly, as I am not practiced at it, so will do so this evening - if someone doesn't do it first. Is this the same editor as moved the previous Beatles song article? If it is then I will (also) consider attempting to rectify this problem at source by suggesting they gain consensus for further moves. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. I simply deleted the disambiguation page, and moved the Lennon song back to it. I noticed that there was a template already on the Lennon song directing to the Jesse McCartney article, otherwise I would have placed it there myself.LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to bother building any consensus about it (life's too short to argue the relative notability of a John Lennon song versus one of Jesse McCartney's after all ) so I'll let this go, but it surprised me that some random song of a John Lennon album with absolutely no claim to notability other than being a John Lennon song anywhere in the article gets the unadorned name, while a well-documented hit single does not. Seriously, if Lennon's song is so notable that anyone who lived in the 60's would have known about it, then there should be something in the article that mentions it. Instead all we see is that there's a backstory to it. No hint at all that anyone cared. The article needs to be stocked with reasons why it deserves the primary title, because I'm really not seeing it at all. For all I know, there's not a soul who's ever heard of that song besides people who bought the album, while everybody who's turned on a radio in the past six months knows about the McCartney (ironic last name, huh?) song--and that's well-documented. And of course the relative notability of the artists doesn't matter at all if Lennon's SONG is not significantly more well-known than McCartney's. Or if U2 included a song called Hey There Delilah as an obscure album-only track on their latest release, would that automatically boot out the hit single? If you wish to respond, please do so on my talk page. :) Matt Yeager♫(Talk?)05:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
At least this time I have just needed to review my previous response to remind myself of the sequence. As well as dropping a note on the editors talkpage I have move protected the article for a year. If Jesse's song is still getting the major hits then we may need to discuss whether dabbing is appropriate, but I think that getting some of those references to recent publications - and major ones over the years - citing the song in relation to Lennon and Macca's personal relationship breakdown (and reconciliation) may get the point of primary subject made a lot clearer. Yes, John, I am looking at you! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks once again. If Jesse McCartney's song remains an important topic after a year, then it may well be appropriate to insert a DAB page or even to switch his song to the primary topic spot. My comment to Matt Yeager was along those lines: Lennon's song has been a topic of discussion for 40 years and it remains to be seen whether the new song will have any longevity.
Regarding sleeping attire, etc., I am not going to go there. I will say that any sleep session from which I awake is a good sleep! — John Cardinal (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Edit locked? — I am glad to hear that the page can't be moved, but I just discovered it can't be edited either. Is there a way to prevent a move without limiting editing? — John Cardinal (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course there is, you just have to find a sysop who can do the simple things without getting it wrong on a regular basis... Oh, well, when things go wrong around here, you know - just by looking at this section - who is to blame! LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
You know, your page and the title of this subsection popped up on my watchlist...and my sincere hope was that you could answer "Very well, thank you!". Sad, isn't it... Risker (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
User:LessHeard vanU/archive 2 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as LessHeard vanU/archive 2's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear LessHeard vanU/archive 2!
We have agreed Naming conventions for the names and titles of those in the British peerage and baronets that is laid out in Point 4 of this MOS and is confirmed at the Peerage Project guidelines! These are in place and have been for a long time - why are two editors allowed to ignore these and edit war? Why are you allowinfg them to do what the hell they want?--Vintagekits (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Why? Well, until you unleashed your campaign the very moment your restrictions ended there was no dispute happening - so you have to say that policy (which is descriptive rather than prescriptive, meaning that it follows rather than leads the practices) was not being so violated as to cause disruption. The disruption only happened once you start unilaterally acting against the existing consensus. You have made no effort to give notice of your dissatisfaction or start a discussion upon it as regards the editing of the other parties, you just unilaterally started editing to your interpretation of the policy.
However, I have suggested ArbCom - which famously reviews all parties activities regarding behavioural disputes. If you are convinced that you are right and the others disruptive then you should have no problem with having a case (or at least a request) placed before it.
Notwithstanding the above, why do you believe you were placed on a restriction of one year from editing the Baronetcy articles? Why do you believe the restrictions had consensus? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
None of the Wuzzies appear to have edited the article, so it may just be this one stirring the pot. If any one Wuzzy appears to be a vandalism only account then blocking the rest may be appropriate, I suppose. I don't believe a CU will be persuaded to go fishing for other, older, accounts on the basis of this one comment, though. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC) Hmmm, the taste of foot in the morning... It reminds me of.... Humility! LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding these above socks, is there still a chance of having them checkusered and the results added to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hilary T? More to the point, can I request it even if the socks have already been blocked? The reason I ask is because part of this user's operating practice seems to be wikistalking me (such as here [4]) and I would like as much of an evidence build up against future attempts as possible, since the user seems in no hurry to get a life. --BlueSquadronRaven15:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if the same individual continues to create socks to create major disruption - which I reckon making personal attacks falls into that category - then reactiviating the SPI report to request a CU to see if there is a ip range that could be hardblocked without collateral damage would be fine. It may be declined now, but at least there is a record for any further requests to be based upon. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I honestly had no idea what I was doing. I just have a question, I read the five pillars and I'm trying to figure out how I can put more information about the International Breast Milk Project up without making it seem too promote-ish. Any tips or ideas? It would be greatly appreciated. thanks so much again!
Imbpwiki (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. He usually doesn't bother, but since I blocked his ip as well - I shall take a look in a minute - he may not be able to sock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of this editor's block. Not only were there COI issues but the username itself is against policy. I've traded some talk page messages with this editor and they see the problem with the userid. Could you reinstate this block (permanently) based on the username policy and encourage them to create a new userid?--RadioFan (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
They were blocked as they were removing the speedy delete template, and obviously through ignorance rather than malice. Once the speedy was declined I felt it safe to unblock, and subsequent discussion has indicated that they are good faith and unknowledgable in regard to WP. I suspect that the same is true of the username issue, and that once Imbpwiki understands your concerns they will be happy to address the matter. I think the effort should be made (I note your comment on their talkpage) before another block is meted out. I of course recognise policy, but think WP:IAR is paramount here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
User:HellinaBucket
She's put up a request for unblock, but used the autoblock template instead of the unblock template since she is not autoblocked. Judging from what she is saying, she will continue to fix the issue after the block. Momo sanGespräch20:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I have just come back from her page, where I have advised the appropriate template to use... and commented on her reasoning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
However the redirect Occupation of the Baltic states now has history, so admin assistance is now needed to clean up the mess. Would you be inclined to assist?
The real bone of contention appears to be the duration of the Soviet occupation, not the actual term "occupation" itself. Nobody disputes the Soviet Union occupied the Baltic states in 1940, but there are differing views on the duration. There is a body of post-Cold War academic work and numerous Western government declarations supporting the view occupation lasted 50 years, while the Russian government supports the alternate view that occupation ended at the conclusion of WW2. Both of these view points are covered in the article itself according to due weight.
The original name Occupation of the Baltic states makes no claim either way, whereas the current name Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II implies a particular POV that occupation was restricted to WW2, which is clearly more controversial given the yards of prose written about this on the various talkpages. I think the penny has dropped that the title "Occupation of the Baltic states" is actually the neutral middle ground between "Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II" and "Occupation of the Baltic states (1940-1991)" --Martintg (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I won't say consensus exists. However, I have no objections to the moves being completed. Until we get a more ballsey ArbCom, we won't have the ability to stop this kind of thing. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Second Martintg's request for a quick mop to restore the old name before the unilateral move - The article Occupation of the Baltic states during World War II definitely should be restored to its original name, Occupation of the Baltic states, which was its name before the unilateral change by one editor six days ago, on May 1. Editors of the page cannot restore it back now that without an administrator because a redirect page now exists in the old location (Occupation of the Baltic states, so a move back to that location is impossible (without just a copy/paste job).
We just need admin assistance to do so, and I second the request. The reasons for the restore are now fairly obvious:
(3) The move was done unilaterally without consensus here, upon request on his talk page from one user, Dojarca, here and here. I don't wish to enter into re-criminations here of this editor's subsequent rather odd statements about other editors -- this is a subject of other topics.
(4) In addition, though this is really not needed for the restoration, the idea of the original unilateral move -- to inject an artificial temporal partition at 1945 -- made no sense historically. It has already NOT been followed in the same editor's newly created Baltic states and the Soviet Union, which is also likely to be changed to Baltic-Soviet relations per this request.
(5) Restoring the name from six days ago also comports with the further suggestions here. #(2) of that suggestion is already being implemented.
(6) Any discussion of a further change of the article can still be had on the Talk Page -- where consensus can be reached -- after the article name is restored to its status quo before the unilateral move.
Were this just a simple unilateral article change, it could be corrected in conventional edits, such as merely being modified or reverted by article editors. Because it is a move to a page where a redirect already exists, it requires an admin move.Mosedschurte (talk) 09:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I recognise the requirement for admin buttons I do not think I am the sysop for this case; my moves log is pretty sparse, since I am not familiar or comfortable with this set of tools. If you cannot find anyone else in the next day or so I will attempt to do as requested, but will need a bit of time and a window open on the "Undoing Moves for Admin Dummies" page. Let me know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you LessHeard. I cannot say which Jurisdiction i belong, a can only tell that is a Masonic obedience, just like User:Msjapan does. Anyway i can tell you i do really know Carlos Botelho a known freemason. What makes me confused is that some users that doesn't know the reality in Portugal can clear without opposition information for their convenience. I admit the advise you give me and i am going to put the userbox in conformity. All information i do put in articles are referenced or will be soon believe me. Thankyou for your timeKind regards PTorg (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding your ANI comment, about WMC's role in this issue, Damian was the only one past 3RR that I could determine. He was reverting against Karbinski, the IP 72.199.110.160 (talk·contribs) and various others. The IP might deserve a block for long-term edit warring but that would take some investigation. Anyone with concerns about the other editors can file at WP:AN3. WMC blocked Damian because the latter came to his talk page and announced he was over 3RR. Apparently, Damian wanted to create a test case. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I have no qualms about PD's block - other than it was WMC again - but rather that you cannot edit war on your own (the block was not for vandalism, so PD's edits while disruptive were not intrinsically bad faith). I saw no other action taken by WMC, while you did later sprotect. As for the ip not technically going over 3 reverts (aggravatingly, I cannot get the article history to load), as ever there is no allowance for how many times an editor may revert rather a view on whether they are being disruptive. The ip was blocked previously for their combative method of editing of this same article, so I do not see how they remained unsanctioned. If PD is indeed attempting to make points by his style of editing, some in the WP community is certainly providing the sharpening materials. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I am hoping to drum up support for blocking the IP for a month, but feared that AN would disapprove. He has made controversial edits without respecting consensus or using Talk (whatsoever) for five months now. Do you have an opinion on whether that would justify a block? EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I would think that by ignoring the pillar of WP:Consensus in not using the talkpages or otherwise communicating with other editors, in short attempting to WP:OWN the article, the account is systematically disrupting the encyclopedia to push their particular POV. I don't know if a month is appropriate, but perhaps a week considering their previous block was for 24 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked the IP for one week. I believe that he fits the 'classic' definition of non-3RR edit warring that is often applied at WP:AN3. Other admins may modify as they think best. On his user talk, I stated that the block may be lifted early if he will participate in discussions and will agree to follow consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I know the user is very problematic (even in Korean Wikipedia and I've always disagreed with him), but is it really necessary that you even block him to defend himself on his own talk page?[5] He has not disrupt nor abused usages of his talk page for unblock since the indefinite block was imposed to him.--Caspian blue19:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I had misread the his contrib history and thought he had blanked the block notice - but I got the time wrong. I have re-enabled the ability to use the talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Just for your information, the editor is a teenager (he revealed himself on his user page) whose too carefree mind does not fit to Wikipedia but to Encyclopedia Dramatica or Uncyclopedia as many think and he admitted himself once. So well, he may either begin socking or leave here for good. But I'm sure that he would choose the former. I'm not opposing your block to him at all. Have nice weekends!--Caspian blue19:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello LessHeard. Please if you can take a look ate the article Grande Loja Regular de Portugal and give me a opinion about the late editions. It seems that there is some interest in turning the article in a generic one about Freemasonry in Portugal which is not the case. After our agreement and AGF i am not sure if this is a way to evoke COI to my editions. I am tired about this. Thank you and excuse the bother. I would like also if you could "watch " this article. Yours PTorg (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
"Recognition" and "incorporation" are very different. A Grand Lodge is incorporated (or more properly "constituted") by three lodges in a country where there is no Grand Lodge for their obedience (if there is, they are violating their bylaws and are illegal). After the new GL is created, it asks to be recognized by other Grand Lodges in the world individually. However, as I mentioned before someplace, it's not uniform, and therefore not every GL recognizes every other GL. So it's not that GLRP was created by UGLE, left, and was recreated by Scotland, but rather that since a GL can only recognize one GL in a given area, it was as Blueboar stated where it was a question of deciding who was who, and those particular jurisdictions chose differently. Nevertheless, I could only visit lodges under whatever GL my jurisdiction recognized (if at all), and that would not be dependent on what any other jurisdiction's recognition result was. MSJapan (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't pretend to understand the constitution of Freemasonry lodges, so sometimes my use of terms will be inexact (to the point of incomprehension). I try to comment as how an outside reader of an encyclopedia may wish facts - which are left to those with access to the right sources - to be presented. Like Jahbulon, it is less important to a reader that the term is archaic/inaccurate than it is to be discussed within the Freemasonry ambit - whatever constitutional problems with the Portuguese Grand Lodge, if it conforms to the article requirements then it has a place in WP under the generic Freemasonry category. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem Less, this is often confusing to insiders, so I understand that it would be doubly confusing to outsiders. MSJ and I were simply trying to get you to understand the history here. The more I look into this situation, the more I am thinking that your idea of merging all of this into a broader Freemasonry in Portugal article is the best way to go. Given that one source says that GLRP consists of only 100 members, I am really beginning to question whether this specific Grand Lodge is notable enough for its own article. I want to give people a chance to resolve my concerns and demonstrate that GLRP is notable before I do anything, but I am not holding my breath. And thanks once again for giving an outsiders viewpoint. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
As I have commented elsewhere, an option would be to AfD the article with a view of merging it into a yet to be created Freemasonry in Portugal article - this gives the opportunity of uninvolved (in many ways) editors looking at it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that what responses there were point to a 6 month ban from article space, but to note that they are permitted to use the various talkpages to articulate their viewpoint. I think it possible that they will simply wait out their ban, not posting anything on the talkpages, and then continue as before - but even more likely is that they will sock furiously, and find themselves on the end of a community ban pretty quickly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Recent block
I loved this one: Block log 21:02, May 13, 2009 you blocked 65.125.253.194 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 31 hours (schoolblock: No sign of educated editing). LOL. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
This editor is actually quite useful. He made ONE mistake in respect to making a sockpuppet, but his edits should counter-balance that.
He pretty much just got over-anxious in 'warring' with another editor. To tell you the truth, its somewhat of an ego-destroyer to let him think that all his contributions could be negated by ONE mistake.
If he promises to act more responsibly, then I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt. He DOES admit that it was wrong. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
He is indeed; it's a "reconfirmation" of his administrator status. If you read the nomination statement, you'll find full details. Regards, AGK00:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your "RFA". I don't really feel any need to comment on the page itself, as I'm not that fond of reconfirmation RFAs (though I admit that since there are few other ways of getting that level of feedback, they're probably useful), but I did want to say something to you. We have disagreed before a few times, and I think we have very different ideas about and ways of contributing to Wikipedia. Regardless, I think you've got the best interests of the project at heart, and you definitely do a lot of good. I feel very comfortable with you continuing to be an administrator. Good luck. :-) --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes09:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
A couple of people have put themselves up before. Dare I say, they were typically more controversial than you! Of the top of my head, a few times the consensus was pretty clear that people didn't want them to be administrators, and they kept the tools anyway. One example was WP:Requests for adminship/Danny, where he put himself up for reconfirmation after finishing employment with the Foundation, which wasn't really necessary since his adminship wasn't granted by the Foundation but by the community. In the end it ended below the typical support threshold required, but he got "promoted" anyway. A lot of people that supported actually disagreed with the decision, as well as many of those who opposed. So yes, they can cause problems, though I doubt yours will cause any problems. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes10:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Deskana or me? I am, because I am one of the very few who has responded to a listing there - and one of the reasons I have chosen this route is the same lack of visibility. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
One (probably unintended) consequence of your RecFA is that it raised the visibility of WP:ADREV greatly. So, thanks for that =) –xenotalk14:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I think you are fucking brilliant, LV. What better way to indicate the need for admin re-evaluation from time to time? I am surprised you can walk, with cojones that big. :)- Arcayne(cast a spell)19:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's the only way of getting an honest appraisal of an admin - if they're actually risking something. I know it's been criticised as attention-seeking and drama-provoking etc etc etc but I think it probably shames one or two complacent do-nothing 'I'm-so-important because I'm an admin' people here and there, and that alone is worth it. (Easy for me to say, not my balls on the table). pablohablo.21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you know what in the world he is talking about [6]? I can't imagine you'd support him getting a new identity after blocking him here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
If he created a new account and kept it clear of the problems incurred by the Samlaptop then WP would likely not bother to see if there was a history. My suggestion was that if they were serious about contributing usefully, then a new identity would be the way. For some reason they appear reluctant to consign the Samlaptop account to history - I don't think they are trolling, they genuinely appear not to "get it", but it may be a consideration if they simply keep repeating the please unblock me, I will be good routine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Jose_Fadul
I've been editing wikipedia for years and still am not very good at it, and thought perhaps you could help with the situation over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Fadul It appears to me that the user has used sockpuppets and bad sources to build this person's article and related scholastic... frankly the whole thing gives me a headache. Jasonid (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
You kept asking for specifics. I took two hours and went through your contributions at Wikipedia Review. I picked perhaps 1/20th of the threads you edited on and scanned for anything concerning, and I have asked questions on it under number 15. This should be enough for now, especially seeing as how only part of the site hass open access. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I hope you appreciate that I picked the posts that dealt more with philosophy than just the random attacks, like the one Botany pointed out. I strongly believe in what NYbrad alluded to when Everyking asked Brad to discuss the ArbCom matter on WR - Wikipedia matters should be dealt with in Wikipedia and through Wikipedia processes. As WR has pointed out many times, they aren't Wikipedia nor controlled by Wikipedia. They have their own agenda, and Poetlister should tell you that you cannot trust people that seek to operate outside of Wikipedia. The hostility of Gomi towards CoolHandLuke, for instance, should tip you off to this. You attack IRC as operating outside of Wikipedia, so I am sure you can see the potential hypocrisy with that, especially with many of those at WR declaring their intent against either Wikipedia as a whole or various members of this site. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't always agree with NYBrad's views (nearly always, but not always), and this is one of them. Certainly, internal WP processes should be applied only within WP; but not everything can be said within WP without being drowned by some interests attacking the messenger for daring to deliver the message. Often this can be avoided by using email, but that is sometimes used as another avoidance tactic. WR allows a viewpoint to be published and linked to, and then discussed. It can be difficult to debate a sacred cow of WP policy within WP sometimes; and some of us believe that it can be beneficial to the project to be allowed to debate it outside of it.
Gomi is hostile toward CHL/One, SirFozzie gets flak from Milton Roe, everyone who hasn't a WP account has a pop at Dan Tobias, and most people ignore me - even NYB, Lar and Alison get picked on simply because they have supported the aims of WP. We know that, yet we go there to put a pro-Wikipedia bias on discussions and also to try to determine if there are valid areas of criticism being promoted. Recently WR ran a quick poll to find out why people use the site, my response was one word; "Perspective". I supply it and I receive it.
I am pleased that you have given me the opportunity to say this, outside of the more public arena of my RecFA, because it may seem a little impolite - but trying to suggest motive by association is not a valid point. You are upfront about your being Roman Catholic, yet I would suggest that you might be upset if people looked at you in askance because to the recent and continuing RC sex and children abuse (not sexually abusing children in many cases, sometimes the two are separate) scandals involving some members of that clergy. While the Catholic Church and WR have incredibly different reasons for their existence, and it can be said that WR's is less pure in intent, it should be realised that no person should be tainted by the association of the least savoury of either organisations membership. You are most likely not a sinner (although I would not be interested in promoting you for sainthood either) and neither am I either of the two extremes of the WR membership. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
"WR allows a viewpoint to be published and linked to" So, you are glad that there is a forum for the banned trolls and anarchists whose sole intent is to attack Wikipedia and embarrass Wikipedians? And you have no qualms that they use outing and revealing personal information as part of this agenda? If you are about having a site to allow speech, why would you pick it with them? This is the same as any protest - it is one thing to protest peacefully, but it has been clear time after time that there is nothing peaceful or pleasant about this. You have admitted being played by their members before. And your comment about the Catholic Church is absurd - the Church is founded on morality and the people acting this way defy the Church's teachings. Wikipedia Review was founded on destruction and the people acting this way are upholding the site's teachings. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... It had appeared that you were attempting to discuss on a rationale basis, but you now seem to have reverted to hyperbole and nonsense. So, in return; I am pleased to be part of a group that allows Protestants, Anglicans, Muslims, Hindus, Satanists, Agnostics and Athiests, and some ex or practicing Catholics to be unworshipful about the Catholic Church. OR, are you really trying to tell me that the only problem with Wikipedia is that some awful people on Wikipedia Review keep on calling people names and making fun of the project? Is there to be no dissent? Is there no place where someone can say, "I think it would be better if..." when they will be shunned if they said the same at WP? The Catholic Church had such an apparatus to remove dissent; it was called The Inquisition - and they had the moral authority to torture a soul until they repented (lack of repentance being proof of devil possession). When a place provides a haven for those who would draw attention to the negative aspects of a subject there will be others who will use it as a base to try and destroy it - and this place allows those who would keep it the same equal opportunity to voice their opinions. To be banned from WP is not the mark of Cain, it means that a website is not prepared to allow them access - and the reasons for that decision may be flawed (and, per Rootology, found to be so) and even when they are not that does not invalidate the view that Wikipedia as is needs removing - as long as it is cogently argued (such as the case that an information source should not be edited by people ignorant of the subject - which I disagree with, but recognise as a good point) then it deserves airing. How is Wikipedia going to be improved if there is no recognition that it is not perfect? Wikipedia Review provides access to things that some people, even in good faith, would prefer not to be known in case it lessens the "authority" of WR. The fact it had (or has, according to belief system) provided opportunity for anti Wikipedians is a necessary evil. I feel. You obviously disagree. We are not going to agree on this, and perhaps our time would be better spent on attempting to influence the few remaining !votes at my RecFA and then afterward in attempting to make the encyclopedia a little bit better than it was before - each in our own way. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you learn nothing from the Poetlister ordeal? You cannot trust banned users that operate such sites, no matter how sympathetic they may seem. Look at MyWikiBiz, who is blatant about him running a "clean" account. I can show you other threads of people stating the same thing, and one guy boasting (probably easy to dismiss) that he had three admin accounts. People can claim to be fighting for what is good, but how good is their word if they surround themselves with people who are doing exactly opposite? And I spend a lot of time challenging what goes on at Wikipedia. Look at the Mattisse ArbCom - I have no power there, but I will join Mattisse if there is a forced 60 day "break". I don't like Mattisse. Mattisse and I have had almost -no- positive interaction, and we have opposed each other constantly. However, I will be damned if Arbitrators rule in a manner that not only does the opposite of fixing the situation but prohibits that person from actually benefiting the community. Instead of digging up dirt on people, lodging invectives, or the rest, I go to threads, throw out justified arguments, and put myself out there. I contribute a hell of a lot of content at this encyclopedia and I use that as leverage to try and ensure that there will always be people around to produce more. The hate that happens at that place, the constant attacks, and the rest, do not breed an encyclopedic atmosphere. They breed chaos and destruction. If there is anything positive happening on Wikipedia, you can be damn sure that it is 100% in spite of WR's every effort to destroy this place anyway they can. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
User:Mantanmoreland. Abused their position on Wikipedia for years, and introduced self serving bias that distorted a raft of articles on this encyclopedia - just so that they could continue to make money from a practice that has been now suspended by many of the worlds financial institutions. So successful were they that they got good faith editors and commentators blocked and banned from Wikipedia. Is that what you seek to protect? Because some of those commentators went to Wikipedia Review and continued their campaign and, guess what, finally engaged sufficient reputable WP editors to conduct their own investigations and find that there really was a problem. So, now these articles are carefully watched, and are quite good examples of what encyclopedia content should be. Not bad for the den of trolls against the goodly and pure Wikipedia. I recognise the bad side of WR, but your blinkered attitude provides you no opportunity to see any good that may be there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
And we can throw in a bunch of others, but it only takes one group so it doesn't really matter. If you want to say "Oh, Grawp isn't part of WR" you can do so, but I think it is off the point. Now, please find where I protected any of these editors. I protect contributions to articles and those that I can respect. I have spent time getting a lot of people upset at me when pushing for stronger checks against plagiarism problems at DYK. I got even more upset at me when I helped end the gaming of processes related to the WikiCup. Did I use Wikipedia Review for either? No. I built a lot of content and used it as proof that I understand what I am doing. I also built a lot of content with other people so they knew that I was capable of understanding what this encyclopedia is about. People can hate me and they can love me, I don't really care. I care about the encyclopedia. That includes having faith in the system and going about the right ways to act. If the system doesn't fail, I will let people know by showing how the failed system is getting in the way of furthering content. Would it be possible if I made a series of alternate accounts? Cussed out people constantly? Made fun of people at WMF all the time? Celebrated when people retire or leave? No. The difference between you and I is that for my year of active service here, I have created over 100 DYK, many GAs and FAs, copyedits and clean ups of them, advice to content editors, and have an additional 50 pages to put into main space from my prep work, put over 30 pages up for GAN, and have over 10 for FAC. Why do I do all of this for so little respect and the rest? Because they don't matter. Nothing matters but the pages that are on this encyclopedia, and no, some off site attack group is not something you can turn to in order to further this. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
This RecFA is about me; and your point is that you feel my membership of WR is unsuitable for the access to sysop tools to be allowed. How you contribute to WP is your own affair, certainly if you do not violate any policy or guideline (although your name has been invoked more than a couple of times on the admin boards), and I am content to allow any person who is willing to contribute in good faith to the encyclopedia to do so in their preferred manner. I am not prejudiced against anyone who is prepared to work with others within this project. I don't care if they read the Wall Street Journal or Das Kapital, I am indifferent if English is their first or second language, I have no opinion on what lifestyle they follow, and I do not concern myself over what other websites people belong to as long as they are willing to volunteer their time in improving the encyclopedia - and if I think I benefit from participating on a site that has and does allow some uncomfortable comments to be published relating to individuals and processes on Wikipedia because it helps inform me to better help this project and this community then I shall do so. I even acknowledge your right to disagree with me, and to voice that opinion - but you are not going to convince me you are right. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Outdent - Yes, the RfA was about you, and my oppose was about you. The nature of Wikipedia Review being a bad site to use is a reflection of your judgment. This was verified by comments on that site which reflect a lack of proper judgment. I find it troubling above how you seemingly ignore that Wikipedia Review serves a primary purpose of causing disruption at Wikipedia which you have either passively condoned on the site or just ignored. Yes, you could have stood against it. Yes, you could fight for what is right on Wikipedia without it. -I- work on Wikipedia to better this encyclopedia and work within the processes. You do not. Actions by people like you on that site undermine the processes and make it harder for anything to be corrected. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Well done. An example more admins should follow, too. Perhaps something like Confirm Users Necessary Trust (WP:CUNT) could be started. Forget that ;-) Anyroads, congratulations! Yintaɳ 00:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Great show. Well done and did I mention congratulations? Just make sure you ask for a brand new mop and bucket set. Dr.K.logos01:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I never thought about the metaphysics of the mop and bucket. Pretty strong stuff :) Dr.K.logos02:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It took balls and integrity to put yourself through that, so well done there. As regards you edit summ, well, no harm in telling a man who deserves to be told to feck off (as I did then, ouch), to feck off! Was a long time ago now. Ceoil (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
[8] Replying here due to closure. The original complainant was not asking for the removal of her bit at ANI, they were asking just for one of you, any one of you, to do something about it. Yes she got blocked, but from your favourite hypocritical GodKing, an age later. If it was a momentary lapse or an error of judgement on her part (and come on, comparing it to a spelling mistake has to be a joke), it won't take too much persuasion from an admin colleague who is now in reinforced good standing, for her to be the better admin and apologize to the offended user. What, I wonder would you have done to Bishonen, or any other admin, who had done the same, given your various comments on the subject. I probably should have made it a Question to the Candidate, in wonderful hindsight. I can guess the answer, and I can guess it does nothing for the likes of Beeblebrox. Anyway, let's see you put this new found process into action, and let's see if we can't get the likes of Bishonon involuntarily held to the same standards as new candidates. Not that this reconfirmation realy went the same way as a real start from scratch application would have gone anyway, as plenty of people pointed out. MickMacNee (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I was distracted by my RecFA, and some pc connection problems, so I didn't see what was going on. If it were me who got to Giano's page first I would have done exactly what Bishonen did - but not used the language (er... probably; I would have used more acceptable terminology to much the same effect). I do agree that admins should be held to higher standards of conduct, but also should recognise that everyone makes mistakes and that those aberrations should be judged against the general conduct. I also know that Bishonen is very protective of Giano ever since he put his then pretty unsullied reputation on the line in defending her honour against scurrilous attacks by Wikipedia editors of some status on a supposedly off-Wiki (and they were not treated to sanction, even though their comments were far more distasteful in tone and terminology) venue. This does not excuse Bishonen, but it is reason why some people may have reluctant to get involved - there is sympathy for Bishonen/Giano because of the recognition that she can get called disgusting names and end up with Giano being blocked for speaking up for her.
Now, I am starting to get angry again by the hypocrisy shown in the past toward some editors when enacting sanctions against them now - and especially as it is nothing to do with your concerns over the matter - I think I had best withdraw until I can trust myself to adopt a neutral tone. All I can say that is Bishonen is by far not the worse admin who makes the occasional intemperate remark, and without knowledge of the background it may be difficult to understand the reluctance of some people to act with regard to complaints against her. Bishonen is much a victim of the lack of application of same standards as you may believe her the villian.
Anyone able to conjure up a quick reconfirmation template that I can drop upon the commentators? I didn't last time, and I think I should have made the effort. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If anyone can provide me with one that allows me to edit the content, since I want to note the separation between the process and the result... Look, I can't even find the blinkin' page where the usual RFA thankspam template resides... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting me in my recent RfA, which unfortunately did not pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign!03:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you - I have been working (when my message bar hasn't lit up - it seems strangely active for some reason) on my own, based on that version. I couldn't find an image of a cheese melt to accompany the verbiage, but I do have something I will be inflicting upon the undeserving when I arise tomorrow. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to make a second suggestion, if you two don't mind; let me know whose you think is better. I've even included your sig for you! ;)
My RfA
I would like to thank all who participated at my recent RfA. I decided to attempt to receive a reconfirmation of the community's trust in my usage of the administrator tools, and Deskana happened to close it as "successful" — which, in the context of this RfA, means that I remain an administrator. The final tally was (154/39/22) — despite the high amount of opposition, that is still a truly overwhelming level of support. I am honored that, after nearly two years of service, the English Wikipedia community still believes that I should be an administrator. I look forward to further repaying your immense faith in me. Warm regards, LessHeard vanU (talk) ~~~~~
I am really very grateful for the help, and I am certainly going to use aspects of this template, but I feel that I should speak with my own voice - what would be the point, otherwise? - in expressing my gratitude to all participants. Anyway, as long as you don't peek, it will come as a surprise to you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know you were up for re-election but am hardly surprised, this confirms you are one of our most credible admins. Thanks, SqueakBoxtalk16:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Behind door #1...Mop. Behind door #2...Trophy Case. Behind door #3...Judgement. Not to many of the current Admins would choose door #3. You have started a trend that may lead to improvement. Why am I not surprised??. --Buster7 (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Glad you have been reconfirmed. It took fortitude to even put your name back into the hopper. ++Lar: t/c17:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Me too - somehow I missed all of this drama and am sorry - I would have been there to speak on your behalf as well. All best! Tvoz/talk17:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations indeed, and thanks for the personalized edit summary, with which I agree. (FYI, I'm not an admin nor ever intend to be one, and so I felt the compulsion to (ab)use this opportunity of giving a sitting admin some flak :). More seriously, I wanted to treat your experiment exactly as that, and make sure it wasn't mistaken as a request for a pat on the back. I didn't count all "this-is-the-wrong-place" comments (in every section), but it is clear there is no consensus for this kind of reconfirmation process right now. Still, it's a valuable point of reference for future discussions. I've seen entire threads at WT:RFA devoted to the presumption that active administrators would not achieve support beyond 75% or even 65%, and you proved them wrong. The "community" speaks for itself, and no one gets to speak on its behalf. Thanks for inviting it to speak. ---Sluzzelintalk05:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
If I could bother you for a favor (low priority). I'd like you to check the latest contribs here and these bits here and give me some feedback on my actions. I have a sinking feeling that I may have crossed the line into a content dispute. It all hinges on repeated editing without sourcing being vandalism. That's my position, anyway. I don't know if it's the correct position. I hope this isn't a plaxico 'cause I have no health insurance presently. Thanks in advance Tiderolls21:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It does appear to be a content dispute, initially. The ip does not understand WP:RS in their repeated commenting "you can see it with your own eyes", but they seem to be acting in good faith. However, if they continue to revert against/without consensus, then WP:3RR may come into play - but they do need to have the appropriate warning - since good faith does not outweigh the disruption of edit warring once they have been notified. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely on the good faith assertion (that's why I messaged the user instead of just "red-buttoning" myself into a real mess) and I considered the 3RR situation. 3RR is a sharp double edged blade...I've reverted three times as well. In truth, my reversions were not based on the content but the editor's insistance on their content being added simply because "it should be obvious". I think I need to study the 3RR policy again and get a better grip on that concept. Thanks for the time you've taken and the valuable feedback. See ya 'round 74.182.86.58 (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Stick to the concept that consensus needs to be changed, and edits outside of consensus is disruption. Disruption/vandalism can be reverted without penalty, and violators sanctioned when warnings do not work. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thankspam
Hello LHVU. I understand your point about Wales establishing a net presence, however I wouldn't judge anyone unless I knew them in person. Cheers. Lawtype!snype?22:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I am required to judge people on the evidence of a few edits, in my role as admin. If I can enact a block on that basis, then I am surely able to comment upon my observations of one of the most detail accessible individuals on the 'net? It does not apparently restrict Jimbo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm just grateful that I didn't go WP:200 - and with the same ratio of opposes - because I just spent over 12 hours spamming my thanks to all participants. Y'know, I have some sympathy with FlyingToaster - nothing was so becoming of her brief tenure as a sysop as her leaving of it. If it was her spam, then I think we needn't make it her problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
For your willingness to stand before the community when human frailties showed, I offer you the much deserved Barnstar of Integrity, and commend you for your braveness. In the King's proper English, I bestow this knightly honor upon thee. — Ched : ? 15:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
In other words, you're ok in my book Mark. ;)
follow up
Hey Mark, how you doin' today? Yea, I just started working a little bit with templates, and there's just so much to learn. Everytime I think I've got a good handle on WP, I find out how much I don't know ...lol. I guess basically, at this point - I'm asking you for guidance and help in what directions we need to point family members. I know there are some OTRS things, but I am only vaguely aware of the fact that they exit .. I don't understand the functions, or the exact links. I'm guessing, based partly on your suggestions, that we want to offer links to the family members on how to proceed. I guess my first question would be: What links would those be?
As far as templates, I can copy and paste, but I don't understand the curly bracket use, the "subst:" thing (as made obvious by my needing to fix the recent post to your talk page ... lol). The bottom line is, I don't know where to go from here. Pat me on the back and tell me it's ok, and we'll get things worked out ... lol.
Oh, by the way, just so you have some perspective on who I am as a person, I noticed a comment you made about your 30 years, wearing a suit and tie and all. As much as I'd like to be 18 again at times - I'm guessing I'm probably around your dad's age. I guess a lot of my interest in this was the recent death of a wikipedian who was my age, and had a heart attack while shoveling snow. He was in his 50's, and I related in sooo many ways. I really appreciate your help and encouragement here Mark, more than you know. — Ched : ? 16:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
lol, I'm really starting to appreciate your sense of style and humor here. Yep, I'm wrong again - I hit the big "five-0" just a couple years ago in '07. Glad to hear about your dad, pass along my best wishes. My parents are doing well in their late 70's also.
Yes, that has been my MO, copy/paste - and modify to my desires. What links do you think we should guide them to? — Ched : ? 16:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
OK ... page and talk started. Thank you for the use of your user-space. If you'd want to edit for improvements, and maybe provide relevant links, we could approach a couple others and even make note of it at WP:CENT. Hope I'm on the right path here. — Ched : ? 17:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
ThuranX
Thank you for taking the time to contact me. As I have stated before, I am new to this (relativley speaking) and am indeed unsure about a few things (where to comment on ThuranX's page for example. I got that one now. ThuranX is aware that I could use some pointers but for whatever reason, he has chosen to "get on my Case" as it were. The "sock" is not mine to sign into and my wife has expressed a desire to close it but doesn't know how. Perhaps you could be of assistance there?Pantwearingdoom (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Be glad to take your suggestion, but please note, an hour after your warnings, he returned to the hulk page which set all this off, made the same edits again, and then disingenuously, having gotten explanations before, made yet another talk page comment of the 'oh, that's why? i had NO idea' sort of feigned ignorance sort. He's lookign to circumvent direct discussion with passive aggressive nonsense. ThuranX (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't be a problem staying off the Hulk page, Cameron Scott provided an explanation this time about why he felt my edit shouldn't stay there. I'm aware that ThuranX offered reasons previously, but that was only for HIS removing of my edit. From the start of all this mess, I merely wished for Cameron to offer an explanation for why he felt the need to remove it. In point of fact, I took ThuranX's reason for removing the edit into account and made the new edit with that in mind. Cameron had other reasons for removing it though, and I can see his point.. just wish he'd given a reason yesterday.From ThuranX's comment above, he appears to have little interest in being civil over this so I'm not really sure what to do about it. As far as I'm concerned though, the matter is settled now that Cameron has explained himself.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm.. the jury's out regarding whether or not Lynn will return to edit again... I doubt she will. She acknowledges she only opened the account in order to support me, although she wasn't aware of the rules at the time. Since making herself aware, she hasn't crossed any lines... hasn't done anything here. Since she was willing to close her account, I'm guessing she's not bothered about returning. Anyway, thanks for all your level headed assistance.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
A final note which I'll leave to you to explain to Pwd: When an edit is reverted, one explanation is enough whether or not it's offered by the reverter. In fact, if one person reverts and a second explains, then there's evidence that multiple people don't agree with the edit, and multiple editors may revert a repeated edit, and all do not need to give separate explanations, it's enough that one is given and others agree with it. ThuranX (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I am sure Pwd will read this on this page - I have taken the liberty of changing slightly the shortened version of his account name. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for changing my pants, as it were. I think I was being quite reasonable asking for Cameron's reasons in addition to ThuranX's, if there is any possibility two people have different reasons for removing an edit, it strikes me as being beneficial to the editor to know what ALL those reasons are.. especially a new guy like myself who is seeking to learn. Anyway, just sharing my opinion there...Pantwearingdoom (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, you've been really helpful. I'll leave the editing alone for a wee while, give myself time to learn a few things (unless it's just something minor needs altering), I've been given a helpful link by another editor so I'll start there.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
WelcomeSpam
My RfA
You're welcome for my participating in your "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding your adminship that you intend to cogitate upon, but you are grateful for the very many supportive comments you received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. You wish to note how humbled you are when you read the magnificent Keeper's support comment, no other gave you such great pleasure. You would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to your record. You recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and you accept that you were mistaken in your perception of how it would be received - but you are particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how you were not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support you received, those comments are hopefully going to allow you to be a better contributor to the project. You are welcome. Very much. More Heard than you (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines and cooperate with others, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. Abce2|AccessDenied18:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
That IP you blocked (and a bunch of others that have edited in the same vein on that page) resolves to a range maintained by the government of the Canadian province of British Columbia. I'm taking the liberty of notifying the Communications Committee. Blueboy9620:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Why Did You Undo Valid Changes I Made to an Article
I made changes to an article without appropriate cites.
To quote you your response was: "WP is not a users guide - find cites for these concerns"
It's important Wikipedia reflect truthiness.
Allowing the authors of a product to only promote positives of their product undermines the intent of WikiPedia.
You seem like a rando who spends enough time on this site, can you please explain what you mean by "find cites for these concerns"
I have cited my concerns in numerous references in the article, yet I believe you mean, "This is not a user guide, find a site to voice your concerns on."
You need to reference reliable third party, peer reviewed, published references; Blogs and self help websites do not suffice. If a major publication notes problems with the article subject then that may be used. What some people writing on the internet may think cannot.
The other issue is that an article needs to reflect the subject and how it is referenced by good sources - it is not intended to offer advice on the subject. The article cannot say, "This is not very good, try another product" although it can quote a good source in saying that - but the article must only report and not advise.
You are apparently unfamiliar with Wikipedia (since you posted at the top of my page, rather than at the bottom as is the practice). I will put a welcome message on your talkpage, which provides an excellent quick guide to the more helpful to new editor pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
User 72.220.252.190 (talk) keeps blanking one of the band's genres, and in addition, keeps removing a referenced source. It appears you warned this user before after he made similar actions (albeit in an entirely different article). Just an FYI. Thanks! --Danteferno (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
There is sufficient similarity in genre and type of edit for me to have blocked for 3 months - which is what I did. Thanks for the heads up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Dermatology
Do you have an interest in dermatology? If so, I am always looking for more help ;) Regardless, thank you for your work on wikipedia. ---kilbad (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
my application
Sorry, you give me generous comment. some Admin think I need more time. So I need more time. I will get good user. Thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Re: The Punisher Movie
Taking plot synopses from other websites, like you suggested, is explicitly not allowed by Wikipedia. Lots42 (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I'mpretty sure that he has voted in this AfD I started for no other reason than the fact that I started it, and he's trying to mask it with two similarly unreasoned keep votes on other AfDs. It's not really an SPA since it's out of subject area, but is there some way to mark the votes as spurious? MSJapan (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Possibly, but AGF - there are other argued keeps, and the PTorg is simply following one of the preceding. The closing editor/admin will weigh the arguments and not the numbers anyway. If a pattern develops of contrary positions on any subject, Freemasonry or not, then the matter may need reviewing with a view to diminishing an apparent problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: WP:AN/I thread
I noticed your comment about Hitler & Stalin, & I can't help myself from sharing my 2 cents (US) on the matter. No matter how one frames the conversation, comparing the two is in many ways identical to posing the question: "Which would you rather have -- plague or ebola?" No sane individual wants to experience any of them -- Hitler, Stalin, plague or ebola. ::shrug:: If one can't discuss the matter with more than a little dispassion, then one shouldn't raise the issue at all. (And I added that last sentence only after a lot of thought: I didn't come to lecture you or anyone -- I just had a thought I needed to share. Delete this & accept my apologies if it comes across like an accusation.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
No, its fine - I just hate some of this modern revisionism, but I do acknowledge Stalin was a monster. I don't think the anology is correct though; Stalin is plague/ebola, if you get it it can kill you and is not pleasant no matter what the outcome, but if you didn't catch the infection then you lived a reasonable life - Hitler is some genetic disease, if you didn't have the correct DNA sequence you are destined to be dead or enslaved. In short, Stalin bad - Hitler worse. That is my (British) penny worth of thoughts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm the same (dynamic) IP that posted at ANI. I could go on and continue to "debate" with you (not that I'm saying Stalin was worse than the Nazis), but that would be really not the point of this project. I didn't mean to set you off, but, whether you realized it or not, you set me off since ANI always seems to have seemingly innocent yet totally insensitive political commentaries and it's always treated as lulz. I wish people would just friggin' bite their tongues sometimes rather than toss out some political mumbo-jumbo on such a public notice board. There are quite a few who do it with such regularity it's a hopeless wish. Sorry to take it out on you. So we'll call it a draw, and hopefully we're cool. Feel free to remove this comment if you'd rather not see it on your talk page. --64.85.210.251 (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
My two pennies... as far back as I can recall, going back to childhood, most folks who've brought up this topic with me have tended to say Hitler (even the handful of people I've known who met him) and Stalin were both scourges, utterly harmful, but because Hitler at least thought he was saving the world in some twisted, clueless way, he edged out Stalin, who never fooled himself over that and hence was even worse but at that goulish level, it's only talk. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Forgot to tell you: I'm glad he doesn't like your picture. I for one think it rocks. :) With any luck, it scared the bejeebees out of him. Would you mess with you if confronted with a mug like that? Have a great weekend. Hopefully, it will be free of Bambifan as I am intending my weekend to be. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Protection
Whilst responding to this I seem to have extended your nearly simultaneous protection by a day. Sorries :-) Nja24709:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
24 hours, or 1440 minutes, or 86400 seconds (86401 if there's a leap second in it, or 90000 if there was a Daylight Saving Time switch that added an hour). *Dan T.* (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm an admin; we don't do reading of content. Sorry, i read that and giggled muchly. Oh and congrats on your recent RFA, I forget if i !voted or not, but either way, it's well deserved :) GedUK13:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Your RFA comment, with the "I forgot my name" part, was actually funnier, and more appropriate, when it was signed by a raw IP address instead of your after-the-fact added actual signature! *Dan T.* (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Now, could it be perfectly fine for someone to set up an independent writing service for GFDL / CC BY / CC BY-SA content, to be posted somewhere else, and for completely independent wikipedians to find it useful in some way? Of course. But that's very different from setting up shop to sell one's services as an advocate editing articles? We have ways for advocates to participate in Wikipedia - the talk page serves perfectly well for this. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The first part is fine as a statement, as part of a process leading to a consensus, but insulting as imposed policy - where is the recent community input? The second part seems to refer to the Greg Kohs business model, and I wonder if Jimbo's perceptions are coloured by his relationship with Mr Kohs. I do not know how many business' could subsist on advocacy on a range of articles, very big business' would do it inhouse, small business' would likely not be able to afford the fees, and the middle business' would likely not sustain very many practitioners (for "business" read also, product, theory, agenda, etc.)
My major concern in participating was the assumption that paid editing exists, and what should be WP's response to that (which I think was Rootologys genesis for the RfC). I look after the article Usana, and am well experienced in determining the COI of many of the pro company editors - and how many ip's resolve to a certain area of Utah where the company is headquartered - and would not be surprised if many of those edits are made as part of a remuneration package (even if not directly). Given that there is/was some controversy regarding the company and its selling methods which was aggressively advocated by certain editors I was not reluctant to allow a pro pov being also provided as long as it was as well cited as the negative ones. I feel that the article, because of this through the efforts of a couple of established editors, is pretty well balanced - and if some of the edits were through paid editing and thus disallowed we might have unbalanced content.
My position is that we should not require people to deny their motives in this instance. Paid editing exists, and there is nothing being suggested by those opposed to it to reduce its effects other than continued vigilance and use of existing policy. I am part of a fraction of the community that says that we could more easily detect inherent bias by allowing people to note their interests without fear of over-response, and allow us to devote the effort otherwise attempting to determine what COI exists in helping in other areas of the encyclopedia.
Back to Jimbo's statement, as that it is a reasonable basis of discussion - my problem is that because it is Jimbo (rather than, for instance, you) some people will consider it de facto policy and others will pick holes in it because of who uttered it - the majority will be unlikely to take it as simply an opinion to be weighed with others. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the above before I emailed you. I don't know that seeing it would have changed anything I wrote though, which may also be the way you feel. :-)// BL \\ (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: NTEKO
Just to remind you of the "NTEKO" ("go fuck yourselves" in Arabic) message User:Elie plus left on someone's talkpage. Elie plus avoided editing Wikipedia for a while so that you forget the message you left on his talkpage. He then re-edited Samir Geagea, calling others edits vandalism, adding his POV and inserting a ridiculous sentence into the intro, among others, whichs says "Investigations into the massacre showed it was undoubtedly conducted by Syrian troops and not the Christian Lebanese Forces". Stayplus12 (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, I have asked for a response to my earlier request on their talkpage. I note that Elie plus' note regarding LF/Syrian responsibility has been tagged with a cite request, and that there was vandalism removed in their other edit - but it wasn't the only action. I shall keep an eye on the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, User:Elie plus still did not respond to your message. He re-added his POV, using a different account User:LMshe and then his own account. He should be blocked for the first "go fuck yourselves" offense, not to mention his lack of respect for NPOV and his use of two accounts to wage an edit war in one article. Stayplus12 (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thanks for your concern
Nteko is my username i use to sign posts on my ilike, deviantart, naharnet, alfa and bankmed accounts, i sometimes confuse accounts altogether.Eli+15:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
well i understand Stayplus, angry people tend to be vengeful and say the funniest things sometimes, i was very amused. Anyway stayplus, you should not take this personally, edit reverts are only the way things happen here, it just happened i reverted all of your edits, nothing personal, dont hold such grudge its really saddening Eli+21:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC) aka Nteko elsewhere
Hi there; you just gave this user a token block for what I would have called a quite serious offence. He had already been, arguably, vandalising. I will not change your block, but I do ask you to put him on your watch list. (I would have blocked perhaps 3 days) --Anthony.bradbury"talk"20:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I blocked on the removal of the report from AIV - not upon the report. If the report is remade (upon the current block expiry) then it can be reviewed afresh. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you Mark for your support. I was honestly humbled that you not only took the time to review my contributions, but that you took the time and effort to offer such a profound reasoning. I am truly humbled that such an experienced wikipedian and administrator would offer up such a glowing recommendation. Thank you Mark, and I look forward to working with you in many areas in the years to come. ;) — Ched : ? 05:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't review the contributions - as Oscar Wilde said, it tends to prejudice one so - I supported on the basis of our previous interactions (it seems that one or two opposes were based on exactly the same criteria), and the impression I formed then. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
) so I'll let this go, but it surprised me that some random song of a John Lennon album with absolutely no claim to notability other than being a John Lennon song anywhere in the article gets the unadorned name, while a well-documented hit single does not. Seriously, if Lennon's song is so notable that anyone who lived in the 60's would have known about it, then there should be something in the article that mentions it. Instead all we see is that there's a backstory to it. No hint at all that anyone cared. The article needs to be stocked with reasons why it deserves the primary title, because I'm really not seeing it at all. For all I know, there's not a soul who's ever heard of that song besides people who bought the album, while everybody who's turned on a radio in the past six months knows about the McCartney (ironic last name, huh?) song--and that's well-documented. And of course the relative notability of the artists doesn't matter at all if Lennon's SONG is not significantly more well-known than McCartney's. Or if U2 included a song called Hey There Delilah as an obscure album-only track on their latest release, would that automatically boot out the hit single? If you wish to respond, please do so on my talk page. :) Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
