User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive 3

WP:USER

Does this breach WP:USER? I see you already redacted similar material from his Talk. Thanks in advance for taking a look. Writegeist (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have removed the bulk of the material, and given my reasons at the editors talkpage. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

user:Toupee43

I have to admit that I was pretty annoyed to find that you had changed the posting back to the incomplete posting that was there in the first place. But, I can understand why the rules would be that way. I am unclear on a few other tings, though - can I remove something that I find to be inaccurate? And why were the links that I posted removed? Toupee43 (talk) 04:44pm, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. You can remove anything that is uncited/referenced (providing it isn't common knowledge). If something is wrong, but referenced to a good source then it needs discussing on the article talkpage whether it should be removed. It is preferable to request a reference for any dubious claim - using the {{fact}} template next to the piece of text - but any bad content can be chucked out straight away. The links were removed because I simply reverted the content to the previous editors; it is the fast way to do it, but it means some good bits can get lost also. There is nothing to prevent you from including any of the content you previously added, but within the layout that already exists. It is best to remember that the project is in a permanent state of Work in Progress, and that sometimes an edit which didn't work the first time can be applied differently and be accepted (and then re-edited again in the future.) I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

173.81.182.46

Since the user has vandalized so many pages and been blocked so much, I also started a post on the anon user on ANI. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Honour and Passion vandal

One of his IPs struck today, and also did something he never did before: implying threatening/off-wiki actions (evidence). I feel safer in the fact that i am not Singaporean, nor do I live in Singapore, and that this user cannot do anything to me that will cause bodily harm, but he has now violated something that is against the law in many country, especially Singapore. Therefore, I am asking for him to be hardblocked. Thanks! Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 20:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 20:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps a checkuser might be run, to see if there is a range that he operates from and whether the collateral damage is minor enough for a rangeblock of a duration that might give him pause for thought. Do you have any other recent ip's they have used for a CU to look at? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am going to ask for that. As far as IPs, there might be a lot of collateral damage. It seems ColourWolf uses dynamic IPs, which means we might have to ban Singapore from Wikipedia to stop him. Will ask for hard-block though, and see what the admins can do. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 20:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Succinct

Very
"...functionaries of the content contributors, and not their supervisors" Well written. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Arb

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I'm going to back off a bit because my comments are being seen through the prism of the recent unban case (the outcome of which I supported). But do you really not think it's wise to at least--for serious requests under consideration--put up a notice on the banned user's page and provide a forum where other editors can voice concerns or praise? It seems more thorough and transparent to do so, and at the very least, allows for people to at least feel their voices might be heard. I have yet to read why the current system is more desirable than those relatively minor changes. -->David Shankbone 21:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth a discussion page - but, yes, perhaps when the most recent example is a little further down the history page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's wise. -->David Shankbone 23:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Good move. I'd have gone to semi first, but it's clear this is going to be a hot potato until the air clears. Rodhullandemu 21:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Per WP:NO-PREEMPT. "Pre-emptive full protection of articles is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia". I have requested unprotection or a change to semi. --Elliskev 21:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As is your right - I IAR'ed in this matter, but am open to it being lifted. I noted it at ANI if you wish to make your pitch there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Disagree with full protection, even for a short time? I'd already seen dubiously-sourced assertions added to the article by autoconfirmed accounts. WP:DEADLINE and, more importantly, WP:BLP and WP:V, apply here. I cannot fault LHVU's judgement. Rodhullandemu 22:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't question anyone's judgment. I simply disagree with the action. I think semi-protection should have been given a chance. There were only five reverted edits... As more regular editors start watching the page, the process will take care of itself. --Elliskev 22:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yo! here's the info right here keep the page protected though to prevent swamps of edits.

Please also protect this article

Michael_Jackson's_health_and_appearance is suffering similarly. Please assist, thanks. Whatever404 (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - same protection as main article, reported to ANI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You made a very good move. MuZemike 22:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was skeptical of the protect at first, but given the gravitas of the situation and the initially conflicting reports, the protect was a good one. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Too many reliable sources to ignore that Jackson has passed away.

Please update the page accordingly, since you protected it. Thank You.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The talkpage is open to autoconfirmed edits - get a consensus there and make the request at ANI. It is half past my bedtime, and there are now plenty of alerted admins who can do the necessary edits/unprotects. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

One out of my realm

• Hendrixmorisson (talk · contribs)
• Vahansarkissian (talk · contribs)

Hi. :) I've just got back from vacation to find a message on my talkpage from a self-professed sock of a user you indef-blocked (with good reason) a few weeks ago for repeatedly violating copyright without addressing it. He seems to be addressing it at my talkpage under his alternative account, so I haven't blocked the new account, but I have asked him not to edit mainspace in the new account, but rather to go through the unblocking process with his main account. I've tagged him as a sock. I'm not sure if this handling is a good approach or not, as I'm pretty tired and may not be thinking straight. :) Probably, I should have just blocked him and taken the conversation there. If that seems the best approach to you, please go ahead and do that. I suspect the only reason he's engaging now is that I've protected the space from recreation and he is frustrated in his attempt to place the text here under this new account. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would have blocked the sock and carried on the discussion at the sockmasters talkpage - however, it would now be unreasonable to block for evasion since the discussion has started and good faith may be lost be acting in a belated manner. Should ongoing discussions prove successful the master account can be left blocked and the alternative account used going forward - with a clean block log, but preferably linked to the old one. If the editor wishes to use the original account then perhaps an agreement to block the alternative can be made? All this supposes that the copyvio matter is resolved; if not, then every account will likely require indef blocking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that would have been a better approach. I had already replied to him before I even stopped to consider that editing under another account while blocked is not kosher. :) The hazards of editing while tired. I've got my eye on the space, but it's protected through June 2010, so if he wants an article there he's going to have to clear the issues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ping

Hi. Email. Tony (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you salt Bullspeak

Editor has recreated a oouple times and violated 3rr. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Was doing that thing when the orange message bar went up. I have also blocked for 31 hours, so they don't disrupt the project when they find they cannot recreate the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

looks like you are ahead of me, thank you.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Adminship Questions

I have been thinking for a long time about getting an adminship, so that I can more effectively deal with vandalism. I have been on Wikipedia for 5 years now, and have about 10,000 edits (or close to it). I was blocked once: 12 hours for what can be described as foolhardy handling of an AfD on my part. The block was instituted in September of last year.

Do you think I have a chance at adminship, with my present record? Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 20:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have checked your contribs and stuff, and I would !vote for you. I suggest that you place your hat in the ring (and if you are wary about self nomming I will do that). My only advice is that you do not overly note the block button aspect, but the ability to delete articles, view deleted articles, and protect articles in combating vandalism - people are wary of candidates who are looking to swing the banhammer as the major point of adminship. Be honest about your block, and point out instances where you have participated in building consensus (even better if you can find one where you opposed but contributed positively toward the outcome). Since you have "only" 10,000 edits in five years, emphasise how adminship is not a big deal and is a matter of being entrusted with tools rather than a burning need.

I hope this helps, and look forward in supporting (as nom, if required) in the near future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have heard that some admins hate self-nomming. Can you nominate me? I want to make a good impression. Thanks for everything! Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 04:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I shall set it up in your userspace this evening (UK time). You can then look at the (optional) questions and prepare your answers - we can then discuss when it would be convenient for you to have it transposed into the RfA pages. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have accepted the nod, and answered the question. I would like to ask what I can do and cannot do to attract debate. I don't want to fall afoul of canvassing rules. Thanks for everything! Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 21:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 21:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, considering the response, I think I am going to withdraw in a couple of days, to see what went wrong. Afterwards, I don't really know what I might do with my role here on Wikipedia. Dangerously enough, though, I did think about withdrawing from Wikipedia early this morning. I don't know if it is my heart talking, or merely morning fatigue and haziness. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In terms of any decisions made, I think I need to ask you this: how much moral shame does a failed RfA bring? Is it more like a failed Tenure application, where you are given time to pack up and get lost, or do you have a chance to start over? Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 20:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the debates, I feel kind of insulted that people jump to conclusion about my username. TBH, as I don't know if a failed RfA means an involuntary end to my involvement here on Wikipedia (as in: is there an unspoken requirement for users to start anew, and terminate their existing account, after a failed RfA), I don't even know what to do at this point. Arbiteroftruth ^{Plead Your Case} 07:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we can shut it down now. Well, at least the first item on the reform agenda is enacted (name change!). More to come, I guess, but I am going to take a short break from Wikipedia (not because of any ill will, but real life commitments). Will be back in (gasp!) a couple of days! Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 08:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

another sock

From abfil 175, it appears User:Teekdom99 is also a sock of PCH. Just a heads-up. tedder (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you pleasde help me out?

If you recall a few months ago I was invovled with a dispute with User:Vegkilla and was blocked for inappropriate behavior. I am in no way even remotely interested in restarting that fued and have made constructive edits since. Can you please look at my talk page and make the appropriate reccomendations to VegKilla regarding my actions since and in question. I feel that I am being unfairly harrassed at this point and personally attacked. Last time I was in the wrong I don not feel I am in any way. Thanks. (Hell in a Bucket) There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have commented at the ANI discussion - basically, you are no longer the type of editor that I blocked back in May and you deserve to be responded to in good faith. I see other editors have made the same observations on your talkpage. Hopefully, Vegkilla will respond positively to the weight of opinion being expressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for those words of encouragement. I try and use my start as an example as what not to do here now. I appreciate you time and comments on this situation and regret it has come up again. There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Not really. Good point :) Pedro :  Chat  19:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, though. Considering the events at the Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case--are you really sure that rhetorical point was the best one to make? Perhaps we're agreed on the substance: as a general practice the way this site has been handling RfC participation issues is not a good one. comDurova^{273 featured contributions} 20:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a position unique to Wikipedia - the Vietnam joke of "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity" - that a lot of the disruption endemic to the project is pushing the boundary of boldness in sysop actions in attempting to limit disruption; as with the Sarah Palin wheel war, it is the lack of consultation - in the publicly viewable areas, anyway - before taking a potentially contentious action that results in far more kB's/time being consumed than the disruption it was intended to combat. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if someone would have clued me in a bit earlier - I'd have shut my big fat mouth sooner! :-) — Ched :  ?  11:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Serious problems with user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Hi,

You don't know me but I was hoping you could help me? I curious to know if you have any (hard) evidence that user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is actually blocked blockedTruthCrusader? [1]

He's been harassing a group of editors (including myself) being uncivil, targeting certain articles (Clint Catalyst, Jessicka, Jack Off Jill, Jessicka, Lenora Claire, Christian Hejnal... the list goes on), name calling, wiki-bullying, and basically being an underhanded jerk using policy against new editors as a weapon instead of a tool. A few of us suspect he might have a LGBT bias as well.

some of the discussion below:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

Any concrete evidence would be help as he needs to be stopped. He's making wikipedia miserable for people whom are truly trying to better articles. If he is indeed evading a block then I think action needs to be taken to block his current identity.

thanks, Swancookie (talk) 02:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Need another set of eyes...

An RFC was run at Talk:Rachel Corrie here, and all that seems to be happening is that the one user who was not in favor continues to make every excuse in the book as to why the 4-1 consensus against him isn't valid. I think he thinks he's going to go to ArbCom on a content dispute and "win", because he keeps pushing for it. The problem is, Arbcom isn't going to touch it because it is content-related, and therefore the dispute isn't going to resolve itself. Another problem is that this subject is the only thing he edits, and he has a real problem with OR and synthesis to boot in relation to this article. Any ideas? MSJapan (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the RfC via the prism of the Israeli - Palestine ArbCom decision, and left my comments there. I will watchlist the matter, but I think the matter can be concluded under the basis of my observations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

3rr block (Not you)

I reverted my 3RR warning because I had failed to notice, due to a combination of my carelessness and an inappropriate further warning, that he had already been 3RR warned. I have blocked him (24 hours), but will agree to an unblock if you think fit. I would point out that while discussion on the talk page is recommended in the case of edit-warring, it does not excuse continual reverting in article space; this editor has reverted some seven times today in the Northampton article. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Our messages have crossed each other> As I say, if you feel he does not deserve a block please feel free to unblock him. It seemed to me, perhaps incorrectly, that he was no so much tag-teamed, more persisting with an edit which several editors disagreed with. I doubt that they ganged up on him - an IP is not a good target. But, as I say, unblock if you feel it right. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You clearly feel that i have been unkind here. I have no onus against this editor. I shall now go and unblock him. Perhaps with a suggestion to pay close attention to your wise words. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. You will note that I advised him to heed your wise words. I hope he will do so, as otherwise someone else will hit him again, and for longer, if he carries on reverting. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism of a page

You blocked 216.25.247.247 a while ago [9]. The vandalism of both 216.25.247.246 and 216.25.247.247 has continued since then, mostly with format-breaking edits. 216.25.247.246 has now vandalized the Ringback tone article twelve times[10], including an offensive edit summary on 13 June 2009. Could you take a quick look and see if these two IP addresses should be blocked, or warned in a more effective manner? Thanks in advance! Ttwaring (talk) 23:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to respond. I have blocked the two accounts for 3 months each, since the only edits are the same type of format vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul McCartney GAR notification

Paul McCartney has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome!

I've made it my duty to whack those vandals off Wikipedia with a trout. (or was it a sea bass? Who knows?) Again thanks.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem? What problem?

Hi, LHvU. We've got an editor with a long history of ownership and other bad behaviour (ANI #1, very ugly ANI #2) still/again at it. Will you please take a look here and here? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have looked, and I am disappointed with what I see. Since the three edits of 10 July I see quite a lot of comment from others to VB. I think waiting to see how he responds to these comments is the best option, and in the instance of there being no apparent resolution to this matter then I do think there should be some definite action in reducing the disruption. I shall take a look again when I log on next to see what developments there have been. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Take a look here for starters. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours - comments left at editors talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't see this ending well for VVB in the long run; he seems intent on disregarding the community's chorus asking/begging/telling/coaching him to coöperate. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Again/still

Greetings again, LHvU. Please see here. Vegavairbob, as IP 75.127.130.122, is still persistently inserting his pet image into Bumper (automobile), with insistent edit summaries and absolutely zero attempt to participate in the consensus-building process at Talk:Bumper (automobile). This is after many have warned him not to own articles, not to disregard consensus, and not to use an IP to circumvent consensus and sanctions (such as the 72-hour block he earned for this exact kind of behaviour, and which has not yet expired. He's kind of begging for another AN/I, eh? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reblocked for a month, which is also the tariff for the ip used. I am quite confident the ip is stable, since it has only edited the same articles as Vegavairbob since April and nothing before. Perhaps now that he cannot edit the articles, since account creation is turned off, he is going to enter into discussions and agree to work to consensus. As soon as he gives that undertaking I am happy to unblock, or for another sysop to unblock without reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oy vey. Take a look. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Did you start a SPI? It appears that Vvb had a little sockfarm in place by the beginning of the month, as the earlier edits by the latest sock were 7th and 9th July, and it may be worth requesting a CU look if the sock drawer is empty or not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I didn't file SPI on 60Chevman, but I did file one about a week ago for VVB's apparent IP socks. Do you suggest I revive that one to check the sock drawer, file a new one, or? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Use the one opened already on Vvb - since new accounts are coming to light, and they have been created and autoconfirmed before Vvb started ignoring consensus - which indicates both an intent to circumvent consensus by socking and a possibility of a matured sockfarm in place. As well as the socks not yet found, it might be worth requesting an investigation into the ip range behind them and the (dis)advantages of a short term rangeblock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Okeh. I've never added to an existing SPI, so I'm not entirely sure how to do it right. Shall I just append 60Chevman to the list…maybe a paragraph asking for more investigation? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there are instructions on the page if it had been closed. If it remains open then simply editing in the new material seems okay. I have only ever been on the SPI pages as an admin reporting my actions or making comments, so I am not so hot on the reporting side of the process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just file it as if it were a new one, but use whatever username/IP{ address you used for the old one when you fill in the input box at the main SPI page. → ROUX ₪ 21:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Roger, wilco. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Gillian Hiscott

I've been away and very busy but recently had another go at the article on the talk page User talk:Gillhiscott/Gillian Hiscott. Think its about as far as I can go to date really. Do you think it can go on the main page now? (Gillhiscott (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

I had noted that you and an ip (presumably you logged out) were working on it. I am just about to go out for lunch, so I shall review it later - possibly this evening.

I hope your absence was due to successful enterprises elsewhere. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you and for all your help - you are an absolute star - and quite deservedly popular I see. Good luck (Gillhiscott (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC))

Inappropriate threats

Please see my response here. Your threat against Mattisse was completely out of line and is pure intimidation. It is not appropriate in any way nor do you have the right to make such threats. Mattisse has every right to express concern about the makeup of the group. It is not a content dispute nor deals with an article, so the statements you claim do not apply. This would have been obvious to anyone reading the decision, which includes you. As such, it is highly inappropriate for you to make any such attacks. I recommend that you immediately stop as you have already crossed the line. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If you wish I will take you through ArbCom's remedies regarding Mattisse, one of which was not to perceive every negative comment as a personal attack and not to personalise disputes. You are obviously incapable of understanding that I am making Mattisse aware that she is possibly pushing at the boundaries of her ArbCom restrictions and that she is possibly heading for a sanction - and in your miguided attempts to somehow irritate me by taking up her cause you are likely to bring it about all the much sooner. I am somewhat comforted by you obviously being adversarial with me, since I would be more at risk by your professed friendship judging by your actions in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It was obvious that Giano personally attacked here. Therefore, nothing of what you said applies. The only time that there was a problem was after that moment. The rest was her putting up a 100% appropriate concern. The only thing you are doing is pushing Mattisse into a corner inappropriately. The whole ArbCom issue was over people like you pushing Mattisse to the edge and her reacting poorly. However, people like myself and the others who volunteered are not going to allow people like you bully her to that position. So back off now because you are way out of line and you have no grounds to go after her. What your actions right now are just baiting. The only one that would head for a sanction would be you. And yes, you can consider this your warning. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, it is difficult to determine whether your pomposity outweighs your arrogance - but unless you actually make good with your threats and start some process I should be grateful if you would not despoil my talkpage by posting your foolishness upon it. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting information about a deleted article

Hi, hope you are well. I have Joe Vinson on my watchlist for some reason - presumable I edited it at some point. What was it about? DuncanHill (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Member of Youth Parliament for Mid Cornwall. AfD'ed as A7. You quick categorised it, presumably as part of the Cornwall Project or somesuch. Do you need any further info - I can userfy it if you wish to review it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - there's another Joe Vinson who is a moderately notable American chemist. Do we have any guidelines about whether MYP's are considered notable? DuncanHill (talk) 12:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of any guidelines, but then I wasn't aware of the Youth Parliament or who my YMP was or is. I would think the notability guidelines are similar to local councils; members are not inherently notable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wdl1961

Hi again, LHvU. Thanks much for your assistance with Vegavairbob. I'm having trouble effectively engaging with a user — Wdl1961 — with a long track record of disruptive edits accompanied by incoherent discussion (or none at all) on the relevant talk pages (see his user and talk pages, as well as the bizarre, incoherent edits he's made to my talk page [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. His present fixation is removal of valid maintenance templates from articles without correcting the problems the templates indicate, despite being asked, told, and warned to stop. Present targets of this behaviour include Bumper (automobile) and Engine control unit. I've filed for another WP:3O, reported his continued vandalism following final (level-4) warning at AIV, and co-certified an RFC/U (with plenty of diffs). Can you please assist and/or suggest what else I might try? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have already blocked for 48 hours per your AIV report - I noted the similarities to Vegavairbob in not following consensus in my block message; do you think they might be the same editor attempting to harass you? It is a bit depressing to think someone may wish to irritate a stranger because of a dispute over an article, but it does happen. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I can all but guarantee Wdl1961 won't change his behaviour one iota once the block expires. I'm not sure I think he's a VVB sock; his meatpuppetlike aping of VVB's edits appears to be opportunistically aimed at what he thinks will perturb me right now; I've been cleaning up after his strange, incoherent babbling and odd fixations for quite awhile. See Talk:Poppet valve, for example. I think there's something the matter with the guy; his behaviour is overall really strange. Take a look at how he carefully copies bits and scraps from talk pages (and [ sections of my contributions]...weird kind of stalking, eh?). Look at this, the least-incoherent comment I think I've ever seen him post. It's still pretty detached from reality, and appears to contain natural and artificial MPOV flavouring. This is more typical, and less coherent (but no less tendentious). Here is one of his more overt attempt to sic admins on me (for…um…for…uh…???). What's the best approach to someone like this, d'you figure? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is the "...encyclopedia anyone can edit" I think the best response would be to ignore everything accept obvious violations of the policies and then report them as you would any vandal/ill intended editor. Not raising to the bait is the best long term solution to anyone trying to get a reaction - although in the short term they may try harder. I would also suggest changing your mindset, so you simply consider the other party as a well meaning but wrong editor rather than an adversary. This may help you deal with the irritation factor better. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This is much in accord with my present approach. I don't see Wdl1961 as an adversary, though he seems to see me as such. As they say, it takes two to tango, and I'm not dancin'. I'll just carry on treating his disruptions, when they occur, the same as anyone else's. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC

I have closed the RfC you co-proposed. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Role_of_Jimmy_Wales_in_the_English_Wikipedia#Notes and the subsequent section. I am sorry to say that I did not find consensus for the proposals. Please review my closure and let me know if you think I have made any errors, either in interpretation or administration. --Dweller (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and the closure; I feel the RfC succeeded, in that the discussion was far reaching and generally respectful of other opinions. Some chinks in the mantra, "Rule 1 - you do not discuss the status of Jimbo. Rule 2 - you DO NOT discuss the status of Jimbo..." have appeared and they will never now be plugged. I am content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good way to look at it. --Dweller (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've not seen this one

Is this tag kosher? I've not see it before and it looks strange to me. See ya 'round Tiderolls 00:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

n/m...indef blocked...VOA Tiderolls 01:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your block evaded

You said to let you know if another character pops up from the Frank Dux article: User:Avianraptor is back as User:Avianraptor2 telling us "By the way, expect Avianraptor 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc.....I'll keep coming back until you people listen." "Nice try blocking me. I may be new to Wikipedia but I'm not new to computer systems." He also offers the venerable "I am not Avianraptor. He did use my computer to bring this matter to my attention..." as a defense to him not being User:Justice4allseeker, but in the same day claims, as Avianraptor2 that "I have no idea who those people are but I am grateful that they can see what's going on here." Using someones computer to show them this issue but you don't know them....ok. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

They got blocked fast enough. When a blocked editor evades their sanction then any admin will block on sight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• And his newest incarnation User:Bonebreaker53. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Gone. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Same guy is back, posting the same material, just under his IP: 76.22.87.15 He's calmer than the last time, but writing the exact same things in the same manner. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Since he is indeed calmer, although no less peddling the same arguments, I have while blocking them suggested that they request unblock of the original account. If they follow the WP method, no matter how unlikely their preferences will be agreed, then there is no reason for them to be blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You may be interested

In this, this, or this. Your input would be valuable. → ROUX ₪ 07:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Iz getz to chooz onliz wunz? :~( LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Aw, sadcat. Okay, you can have all three. → ROUX ₪ 12:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I will look more closely at all three, but I would be interested most in the XfA - since the proposed AdminReview process might link in or conflict with it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer 'link in' over 'conflict'. Admin Review might well serve an excellent purpose as a form of dispute resolution intermediate between whining on AN/I and actually seeking a desysop. (It's been a while since I've read the AR proposal, no idea what it looks like right now). → ROUX ₪ 12:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Research question

How do I research to find out if an article was deleted before and just a re-creation? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You ask a friendly admin (/me waves) if they can look at the deleted version(s) and compare them with the current one. If the deleted version contains no BLP or other WP violations - if it were deleted on the basis of non-notability or likewise - a really friendly admin will userfy (take a copy and place it in your userspace) it so you can check it out yourself. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ok then.......I am pretty certain the article Bushinkai was re-created by a SPA. It is currently PROD'd. And for some reason Neil Shapiro popped up on my watchlist, being created yesterday by a SPA. The only reason I can imagine having it watchlisted is because I was involved in an AfD on it before. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• The Bushinkai article has not been previously created under that name. The internal links are to related articles created by the same editor, which are also being promoted for deletion, who appears only to have been active for 2 days in June. The Neil Shapiro article was previously deleted following an AfD, but it has not been recreated by the same editor (unless their cunning plan is to write it in a deliberately non encylopedic style - in contrast to the more MoS complaint version that got canned - so it wouldn't be realised...). The new version, although much longer, does not offer even the few sources that the earlier version did, although it is more detailed and might provide claims of notability that the other didn't. I would not speedy delete it as a recreation, so I suggest that someone with the ability to wade through the verbiage should decide on whether to AfD it anew. As I said earlier, if you want a copy of the deleted version I will place it in your userspace for you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility

H'lo again, LHvU. Could you please take a gander at this and this? The subject article is one of the better engine-related pieces we have, and it's improving steadily, but we've got very strident objection from two IPs (both of which behave similarly and resolve to Chicago) over the placement of maintenance templates in the article. I'm inclined to keep disregarding the attacks and trying to work constructively toward effective communication and incremental improvement, but the steady stream of incivility makes it more difficult than it ought to be. (Longish history on this one; viz here, here (old WQA re 64.107.xx.xxx), here, here, and here.) Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The joys of editing Wikipedia, I'm afraid. If you have consensus for your edits then repeated reverting of same is vandalism, which draws first a warning and then a report to AIV - or if all the other editors have accounts then a request for semi-protection. Apart from one or two choice phrases I am not seeing much more than a content dispute involving some ip's who want their version but not the legwork involved in placing it there. If it is an edit war, against consensus, I suppose that WP:3RR noticeboard is an option too. I am not going to be taking action on this matter. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No need for apology, no action was requested. Should've made that clearer; I was looking for guidance, and you've provided it. Thank you! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A brief elaboration

I responded to your concerns on my talkpage, however I wanted to add a brief note here. Since it seems that my wording have may have been offensive to you personally, I want to offer my personal apology if I have caused you to feel hurt in any way. Sincerely, Doc Tropics 23:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost any situation can be at least partially redeemed by the cloud having a lining of appropriate silvery hue. I've been priviledged to encounter several admins in the course of this fiasco whose dedication to the project and personal ideals are vastly admirable, and you are one of them. Happy editing, Doc Tropics 21:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to provide further input on desysop proposal

As someone who commented either for or against proposals here, I would like to invite you to comment further on the desysop process proposal and suggest amendments before I move the proposal into projectspace for wider scrutiny and a discussion on adoption. The other ideas proposed on the page were rejected, and if you are uninterested in commenting on the desysop proposal I understand of course. Thanks! → ROUX ₪ 04:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

94.169.133.62

Are you able to block this user again. He/she continues to vandalise football pages;

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.169.133.62

Sorry about the delay. I have enacted a six month block - the account being active in football club editing for that period. I think I have worked out what they are doing; they are playing Fantasy Football with real club articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I created a new page. My intention is to dissociate from anything that could be interpreted as a criticism of ArbCom, and just focus on trying to make Wikipedia better. I hope you can look at it and see if you can help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have looked at it, and hope it will be a success. Presently, I do not know what expectations there are of the undertaking and am unwilling to possibly divert the process by commenting in good faith outside of the focus areas. I would like to review it in a month or so's time, when it has matured into its purpose, and see if there is anything that I can contribute to. I suggest that it may be a good idea to re-advertise the pages existence generally at that time, in case there are others who feel as I do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I appreciate the suggestions, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wdl1961...

...pulls another "WTF?", see here and here. Constructive engagement? Not so much, as it seems. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange chap. A review of their talkpage indicates they have lived long enough in the USA to speak the language; it seems that they are not interested in consensual project building, is all. Since their actions is only going to reflect poorly upon their approach to resolving the issue I suggest that the RfC just moves on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, my thoughts exactly; he seems to be a very efficient hole-digger. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C13:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page vandalism

Good call. I've had a look; just the usual complaints I guess, so no further action necessary. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 15:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Some old problem

Hello, maybe you remember this. Now it seems that either some other user follows a very similar pattern, or the same user is back as User:Emerson22, and has forgotten about his promises. The user has already been blocked once [16] due to suspected sockpuppetry [17]. His contributions speak a clear language [18], especially the well-known insertion of the term ideologue [19]. Earlier, there was an IP acting similarly [20]. I guess, all of this is within the framework of our rules and guidelines, it's not yet persistent vandalism or edit warring. Anyway, I just wanted to tell you about what's been going on recently. Please allow me to alert you in case the situation deteriorates, which I hope will not happen. Cheers, --Catgut (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes - Bigsaidlover. If it gets a little fraught on the V. S. Naipaul article I think that there is sufficient similarity to both block active accounts and progress a SPI request involving all the various characters. Let me know if this becomes urgent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, thank you! --Catgut (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to inform you: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Laurelcanyon310. Cheers! --Catgut (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Bebobabbity

Indef seemed a bit too harsh in my mind--especially considering that they weren't quite bad enough to start out of the gate with a level 3 warning. Could you reconsider? Blueboy96 20:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Have they been in contact? I would be happy to unblock, with a warning that creating further nonsense pages would result in a re-instatement of the block, but I am not certain that the account will be used again - unless there is some evidence that the editor is in communication with someone. If you think unblocking is the right thing to do, then I shall do so regardless. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sock / block evasion

I've been in a mild content dispute with MrTwinTowers (talk · contribs) about some edits to Beatle articles. I left a note on his talk page explaining why I reverted his edits; he has not responded. He had a short edit history and I thought he was a new user. I noticed that his first edit was to another user's talk page and I thought that was unusual. As it turns out, the edit shows that MrTwinTowers is an admitted sock of Penguindude97 (talk · contribs).

It's a little confusing; I don't see evidence that Penguindude97 was blocked. On the other hand, I may not know the right places to look and he has deleted entries on the user and talk pages of both accounts. Bobak (talk · contribs) said he has been blocked multiple times before.

It seems to me that MrTwinTowers should be blocked as a sock and that Penguindude97 should remain blocked. I suspect the user has other accounts, too. Can you help deal with this guy/situation? Thanks. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I shall block the account, with a sock template, as it does seem likely that the two are the same - even if I had no reason to doubt Bobak. As WP:SPI and WP:CU do not encourage fishing it will have to be that only when there are other dubious accounts found should a report be made. I trust this suffices. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, LHvU. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for understanding me. You are definitely an intelligent and wise person. OckhamTheFox (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh geesh ... Mark will be insufferably pleased with himself for a week now. ;-) — Ched :  ?  23:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"...more insufferably pleased...", I think you mean - its the acknowledgement of my faults that makes me perfect, you know? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Of possible interest to you

But its a blacklisted site! Go to http:// shop dot cafepress dot com/je-suis-marxiste,-tendance-groucho KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Moustache gracias! LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Xasha

Xasha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

...and? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

X Records discography

Do you think they're delete-able per G3? Most of them, as Imperatore said, are blatantly misinformed as most of the labels listed have no association whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel it would depend on how obvious it is; is it noticeable within the article? If so, then yes. Also, if it is the same or similar misinformation across multiple articles then there is some indication of intent to disrupt. On balance, I would say yes - but think it needs running past another admin to make sure. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies....

...for this - I hit rollback by mistake on my silly ipod whilst checking my watchlist. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you were being entranced by Siouxsie and the Banshees, Joy Division or David Bowie, then it is completely understandable... If not, then "Pay attention!!!" ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is such a serious problem that I've taken to logging out on my iPod before checking my watchlist, and only logging in to make a specific edit. It's really annoying. It occurs to me that it would be nice to "disable" the rollback link whenever one uses the iPod/iPhone. Is this possible? Viriditas (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously asking me? I have a Shuffle that I inherited when the wife upgraded - I don't even have the technical knowledge to be a Luddite since I haven't quite worked out what it is I might be protesting about... However, if you really want an answer then I shall give it my best consideration. Possibly, likely probably. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, you'd probably have to create a specific app for it. The easiest thing to do would be to create another account without rollback rights ("Viriditas2" perhaps?) and then copy your main watchlist over to the new account. Then you could safely use that account on your iPhone without worrying about mistakenly reverting someone's legit edit. Best, →javért ^stargaze 20:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In my monobook, couldn't I just disable rollback linking if using iPhoneOS? Can it sniff my User agent? Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

People, people, people - seriously now. We all know that the only possible excuse would have to be ... (wait for it) ..... The Beatles! — Ched :  ?  00:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Hi, LHvU. Please take a look at 69.123.93.168 (talk · contribs). Notice the one article he's made a beeline for, and the small little edits he's been making, one of which is a direct reflection of his apparent beef with the term "straight-4 engine" and another of which reinstates text long-ago deleted from the article as OR and POV. Just for curiosity, I ran an ip2location check, and guess where it resolves to? Medford, New York, which is smack in the middle of Long Island. Remind you of anyone? I hear a quacking sound, how 'bout you? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the ip for a few days, and have extended Vegaviarbob's block for three months. Since I doubt this will effect him very much I anticipate opening an ANI discussion in a few weeks time suggesting an indefinite removal of editing privileges. I assume you will let me know the next time a sock appears? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely! Thanks for the quick action. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mid Indiana Football Conference

I did a little tweaking around with the page. This page like nearly all of the others are stubs anyway and I never really minded. This conference is really just like the Southwest Seven Football Conference in every respect, only that is in central Indiana. Rhatsa26X (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling Correction Bot

Hello - I was disappointed that you deleted my note to thekohser about the spelling correction bot. I thought he might find it interesting or useful to know that there was an automated bot that was able to automatically make the sort edits (such as fixing Febuary and other typos) that he has been making. It seemed fitting to provide the information spelled using common typos that "the tool" and thekohser had been fixing. It certainly wasn't intended to be "unhelpful". Also, I think that the only "funny comment" I have made was the upside down comment on Giano's "I am aggrieved with Giano because" section which I thought was intended for attempts at humor. Heck - even you attempted a "funny comment" there. It does not make me happy to have comments which are intended to be useful disregarded as "funny comments" 99.150.255.75 (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Within the context of Greg exhibiting his exasperation at some of the edits he came across in such a way as to get indef blocked, noting the existence of a spelling bot while using the sort of "common typo's" was not - I maintain - the wisest use of humour. I did look at your contributions and noted, other than the Giano edit (which was funny, I agree), that all of them were to Greg's talkpage - and I interpreted them as attempting to make a point. It was obvious to me that you are familiar with thekohser, but I do not know if Greg knows who you are - even when you are not editing from your ip address - and under the circumstances and in an attempt to diminish moardramah I think my removal of the edit was appropriate. If you wish to again note the existence of the bot then please do, but without the "mistakes" please. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you let me know if my added references are now enough proof for you ?

I have added in the talk section of the article several more references as you demanded which directly connect the two events. thanksJudo Nimh (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Judo Nimh

Everybody's Got Something to Hide

A favor, please?

A user moved "Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey" to "Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except For Me and My Monkey". The proper title does not include "For". The song name appears three times on the original album (inside the gatefold cover, on the LP label, and on the back of the poster included with the album) and none of those titles include "For" even though it does appear in the lyrics.

Undoing moves has always been my undoing. Can you move it back for me? I will be eternally grateful, or at least until tomorrow. — John Cardinal (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. –xeno^talk 13:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ta. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

IP edits

Hi! I am having some difficulty with ip editor 208.93.181.1. The editor has been warned for vandalism and has not ceased his edits. You have blocked him/her before and would appreciate any help you could provide BOVINEBOY2008

I have blocked for a month per your notification. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

AIV block

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.22Long_term.22_vandal.2C_short_term_solution.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

Regarding your unblock of O Fenian: Have you not heard of wheel warring or consensus? There was an active discussion at ANI that has in no way completed? Nja²⁴⁷ 21:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:WHEEL says that a revert of admin action may not itself be reverted - per BRD, a BOLD (a block) action may be REVERTED (the unblock), and then it is discussed. The initial action may be re-instanted, or the subsequent one upheld, or some other solution agreed upon. Toddst1 is a good admin, and I am certain he will provide a response to my actions and explanation. It may be hoped that you are better informed of policy should you wish to comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. You have a private response to minimize Wikidrama which seems have gone off the charts on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I respect your wishes - but should the drama subside I feel your advices would help me (and presumably other less informed readers) understand this matter better. I am getting the feeling that this giddiness is not going to pass quickly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Great unblock well done, and have you looked at the block of Domer which IMO is worse. BigDunc 21:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Dormer's sanction relates to the O Fenian one I thought it best to see how the unblock was considered - it is wrong that Toddst1 instigated it as the blocking admin being complained of, but I don't want to prejudice either editors position by acting without due consideration of all the facts. I intend to review Dormer's edit history more fully, and make my comments at ANI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking me. I feel a one month block without warning for "repurposing/reposting others' talk page comments on different pages" (which in my view was just trying to keep discussion in one place) on a productive editor to be manifestly excessive, and I believe it should also be lifted or substantially reduced. O Fenian (talk)

And again well done on the second unblock. BigDunc 22:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have given my reasons at ANI. I have also requested that O Fenian and Domer48 conduct themselves perfectly over the next little while, and in the same vein would ask you to gentle your discourse with Nja247. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As always and here is an Irish toast for you, Go raibh tú leathuair ar Neamh sula mbeadh a fhios ag an diabhal go bhfuil tú marbh. BigDunc 23:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As is indicated by my userpage, I am far closer to Devon than to Hull so the travelling time is much shorter... LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

LHVU, excellent unblocks, but. The reason (in large part) cited by the involved Admins was the "block record". Which was largely a creation of Admins hostile to Domer and certain Irish editors in general, myself included. This building a block record and using it to block must have some remedy. There must surely be a way of removing bad blocks from the record. In a court of law you are not allowed to inform the court of the accused's record until after the verdict; in Wiki it seems to be the major part of the "evidence" in many recent cases. An excuse used for blatant abuse. In the recent case here I think it isn't enought to stop at the unblocks; the Admins involved must be made account for what they have done. Sarah777 (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not allowing a jury or court to hear previous convictions helps sex offenders, murderers and other violent offenders escape justice, peoples previous record should always be taken into account when cosidering current actions. Although clear unsound blocks which are reverted (fully, not just reduced) should be kept separate so they are not taken into account.

Im not sure what todays blocks were for, ive looked but i dont quite understand it still so im guessing it wasnt a good move. What makes me laugh is there always seems to be plenty of justifications for blocks of certain editors, just some admins pick very strange reasons for imposing the blocks which end up getting reverted. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Am I correct in interpreting your comments above as stating that there were adequate grounds for blocking Domer and OFenian; just not the grounds cited? And that you find this situation amusing? If so, perhaps you might say what those grounds are, in the case of these blocks? Regarding past record; there are very good reasons for not allowing the information while the case is being tried. When sentence is being passed the full record is taken into account. This is done precisely to counter prejudice and the risk of prosecution "fit-ups". Which is exactly what is happening here; perhaps you missed my comments about the nature of the block logs (in the case of many Irish editors at least). Sarah777 (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Im not saying either Domer or OFenian deserved to be blocked today but there always examples of where warnings about comments could perhaps or should of been issued. O Fenian was very rude to me yesterday i seem to recall. In the recent case involving yourself, considering the amount of disruption caused i see reasonable grounds for admins to try and have you take a time out from the ireland poll talk page, instead attempts were made to block you which ultimately and understandably failed. I dont find bad blocks amusing which should rightfully be undone, what i find amusing is the failure to take action against repeated and clear offenders and when action is taken its for trivial reasons or an over reaction which must result in unblocks.

I think its important for people to have all the facts. Why should a jury not be told of someones previous record, it helps them make an informed decision and not be misled into finding a guilty person innocent. As i said before, bad blocks which are reverted should obviously not be taken into account and id rather they were displayed separately, doing that would help those being unfairly treated build up a case themselves. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be engaging on a long debate on LHVU's page! But a key reason for precluding criminal record from trials is to avoid a variant of the Thelma and Louise syndrome. Youngster (let's say a black youth in Brixton) is "hassled" by cops; reacts, gets an "obstructing the police" on his record; is on a list, watched by the cops who then assume he is a bad guy; they fit him up for a shoplifting and the record builds until he ends up before a jury. This happens all the time in RL. And it's Wiki equivalent also happens all the time; with WP:CIVIL being the licence the cops need to act on their prejudices. Sarah777 (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In Great Britain there is this little legalese that is very important; Presumption of innocence. The reason for the entire legal system is that innocent people are not jailed (or hung, or put on the rack, etc) rather than the guilty not go free. The USA and very much of the world works to the same presumption. Here on Wikipedia we have Wikipedia:Assume good faith, which serves the same function. In RL a persons record is only considered when the sentences are to be determined - only after the judgement upon the case, which revolves around the facts presented. This is the way that a serial offender gets a longer sentence than a first time guilty party, and also why it is very important that each case is judged solely by its merits and not upon the record of the parties. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sadly our system has produced alot of crap results and plenty of innocent people suffer because of it. Ofcourse taking action should not be just based on previous acts, it cant be for a trivial reason. But those with a long record of repeat offending should not be given as much AFG as those with clean records. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

But where would you draw the line? I agree that the system is not great but, to (mis)quote Winston Churchill, "It is the worst system possible, except for all the others". I have said, and likely demonstrated, that I would prefer to be hoodwinked many times than to dismiss a legitimate request - the bad 'uns will be found out, but a good editor who no longer contributes is a great loss. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As in RL! Fact is a lot of "Law'n'Order" types have as their keystone of the justice system not "innocent till proven guilty" but rather "the police are right till proven wrong". Which is difficult, when they control the process. Sarah777 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Failing to take action against the bad ones also leads to a loss of good editors. I agree with you that people cant be given blocks for no reason just based on their past records, but how many blocks in someones past is enough before action is taken to put an end to everything. I dont know at what stage someone gets a perm block / ban, but an editor having many blocks (even if one or two were unfairly issued) still seems to be a failure to deal with reoffending and taking action each time as though they have no past record just means an endless cycle of problems.

Anyway im not defending the blocks last night, the reasons given seem very weak but i think its right editors past records are taken into account when deciding if action should or should not be taken and how long such action (like a block) should last. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I should like to conclude this discussion by noting that there is an editor whose last block rationale included the phrase (or similar), "Has been blocked many times previously"; I commented that in future I will unblock said editor with the rationale "Has been unblocked many times previously" without regard to the legitimacy of the alleged violation. It is something that WP has the ability to rescind a previous action immediately, which is not the case in RL, but it is evident that there is at the very least the potential of creating the appearance of a problem with individuals by referencing their past sanctions - this is very much the basis of the black youth in Brixton that Sarah777 refered to, and a matter of which I have a personal viewpoint - and not to the legitimacy of the complaint. Due process, which WP admits not being a slave to, is (I feel) absolutely necessary to ensure the potential of muck spreading does not influence the determination of a complaint against an individual - the absolute requirement is repeated violation of policy in one or more current matters; the history is only relevant in determining what measures are likely to provide a cessation of the problematic behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC) (Dammit, if people want to continue this discussion without widening it currently then please continue: I can always make a sub page. It is important that there can be avenues of discussion regarding how we proceed and where it leads before it is taken to a wider audience for consideration and comment. Let me know if you wish me to host such a page...)

lol sorry, dont worry im done now. I just have different views on this =) BritishWatcher (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Watch over

1. Due to the ridiculous drama of last night I have lost any interest in ensuring that the dispute resolution process is adhered to at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army. Hopefully you will pop in on occassion and ensure it's not being sidetracked or other editors are being bullied by hostile comments and tag teaming. If not, possibly delegate to someone?
2. Also see my response to your query at ANI last night. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be available for any party to that process requesting my assistance. I am a little too close to the subject geo-politically to be NPOV regarding arbitrating the issue(s), but would hope that I could assist in the process side as required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A bit of throwing your toys out of the pram as I said before the mess is of your doing Nja247, you rewarded an IP for edit warring. BigDunc 09:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Award!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For you unblocking O Fenian because the blocking administrator was in serious error I, Rascal the Peaceful award you this barnstar. You really made a good descion in joining Wikipedia. RtP (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If only all my descions were as good... LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

...then this would be routine, and perhaps the level of satisfaction with this decision would not be so great. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"...decision"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That should've read as "descion". My bad, lol. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I’d put it down to the fact that your actions were and are so unusual. Every time I’m just about to give up, something like this happens to give some confidence to editors. Thanks again, --Domer48_'fenian' 12:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

NPA

Can you look into this? This guy → User:Starstylers, is giving us problems again with his flippant disregard for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, which are directed at me, User:Davidelit and User:Merbabu for god-knows-what reason. This here is his latest edit on my talk page. --Dave1185 (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the matter. I see the WQA has not made a decision, and this is obviously what you seek. I would then suggest you approach Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who previously indef blocked and then unblocked Starstylers regarding some previous incivility; there may or may not have been a violation of the undertaking or similar under which Toddst1 unblocked. As I said in a section or two above, I have found Toddst1 to be a good and knowledgeable sysop and am sure that their knowledge of the history regarding this editor will provide them (and you) with an appropriate conclusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks for checking up on me! I'll admit, I haven't been editing as much lately, because of real life commitments, but I am still editing! I am determined to make admin one day! --Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 03:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page comment

Dont worry LHvU, its cool.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you are interacting, so I will strike through my comments on their talkpage. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Stubs

Hi
If it helps, here it is in a clickable (and potentially redlinked) format: User:LessHeard vanU/Old and small articles.
If not, feel free to delete. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 17:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Or use the one MZ already hosted at User:LessHeard vanU/Mini stubs. :)
I'll get rid of the dupe, to prevent confusion. Sorry for the noise.
Cheers, Amalthea 17:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A. Roy Medley

I am not sure why you deleted this article. It seems to me that the head of a major U. S. religious denomination is notable.Vgranucci (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The information provided was "A. Roy Medley has been the General Secretary of the American Baptist Churches USA since January 2002", together with an unreferenced tag from June 2008 when you wrote the stub. This data could be easily provided within the Church article, if considered necessary. For the stub you need to provide some detail on the individual (dob, nationality/origin of birth, previous relevant history, notable achievements either before or during office, etc.); not all, but some. Even if officers of religious bodies are inherently notable, which I would contest, the article needs to say something about them. Please feel free to recreate the stub with some individual details and a reference or two. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I noticed you moved a couple of pages to add (disambiguation) on the end of the article titles - Alman (surname) (disambiguation) and Al-Jabbar (disambiguation). I see no need for such titles in these cases which are rather long and unwieldy. The relevant guideline - Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the disambiguation page - agrees that this should only be done when there is a primary topic taking the name, which is not the case here. Therefore would you move them back to the previous titles.

I also disagree with a number of the speedy deletions that you have done yesterday. There was certainly no consensus in the discussion on the Village Pump that these articles should be deleted and articles such as A. Roy Medley, A377 highway, A44 autoroute, Adams Landing, Alberta and Albright, Alberta do not meet the speedy criteria that you have deleted them under. WP:NOT is specifically excluded from reasons why articles should be speedy deleted - Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Non-criteria - and should not be used as a rationale for deleting these pages unless they have gone through either prod or afd. Davewild (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I shall move the disambig article back to the previous titles, as requested. As per the the other deletions, they were not deleted under WP:NOTDIR but (generally) CSD#A3 or CSD#A7 - either no substantive content or no claim of notability. The WP:NOTDIR was included as "other" reason, not as a criteria.

I would make two points, firstly I reviewed the history of these articles and noted that they were both not edited for a long time (2007 sometimes) and they were not assessed under any project and were then unlikely to be expanded any time soon. Secondly, CSD is specifically designed to circumvent the necessity of arriving at consensus - it is the BOLD removal of non-encyclopedic content. My reason for writing at the pump was to find a way to remove unregarded detritus, and my initial suggestion of using a bot was soundly rejected - but it was frequently commented that they be reviewed by flesh and blood editors; that is what I am doing. As I said at the pump, if someone thinks they can write an encyclopedic stub then I will undelete. Please see my comments on the preceding section as regards removing uninformative stubs. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the disambig pages back.

Reference the deletions firstly at least myself, DuncanHill, TheDJ, DreamFocus and Floydian disagreed with the principle of deleting these sort of articles not just about having a bot delete them. Your view I believe is these are of no value (or are harmful?) however I believe these are better than nothing as I said on the village pump. Secondly these do not meet the speedy criteria you quoted - the A3 criteria is for articles that consist "only of external links, category tags and "see also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, chat-like comments, template tags and/or images." These articles did have some content such as population or elevation so do not fit the criteria. Thirdly Albright, Alberta for instance was tagged and assessed as mid-importance by wikiproject Canada, I have not checked other ones to see whether that it is true for them with similar wikiprojects. If you do believe these should be deleted then send them to afd and let consensus there make the decision, or even send them to prod and see if anyone wishes to contest them there (I will refrain personally). Davewild (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD for ~250byte articles? That we should spend a fifth of the effort in expanding them...! I recall with Albright, Alberta (which nobody had even managed to mention was in Canada) that I checked the What links here to find that it was part of a list of places in Alberta, under other places of habitation that were not towns, villages or hamlets - most of which were redlinked. If it is of mid importance to the project then it was not apparent in the article. An undated population guesstimate and an elevation is not a valid stub, it provides no real information other than it exists. As I said, deletion does not mean the article should not exist but that it is currently of no encyclopedic value and (in my view) is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with page move

Hi LHVU - User:Level One Alert has just come off a block and has made some inappropriate page moves here and here. I'm not sure whether simply hitting 'undo' will properly move the pages back, so I was hoping you could perhaps take a look at the user's recent shenanigans as well as assist in reverting the page back to its original article space. Thanks and cheers, ponyo (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor indef'ed and pages moved back. Happy editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly sir! ponyo (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad block

I've unblocked 203.25.141.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) a school IP who was blocked for "no educated edits from this ip" as the user hadn't been active for 5 days before your block. I don't think lack of education is a blocking criteria for inactive IPs. Toddst1 (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to review the entirety of the schools contributions, since blocks are preventative (that is, limiting potential disruption going forward rather punishment for past demeanours). They will be blocked again when they resume their inane editing, and I am indifferent if it is to be earlier or later. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Repeat vandalizing school IPs are one of my beefs as well. I'd support an amendment to the blocking policy along the lines of indefinitely anon-blocking school IPs after repeated blocks for vandalism and discussion (a school vandal noticeboard?). Unfortunately, I don't think such a proposal would pass and we're stuck with back-to-{{schoolblock}} season. Toddst1 (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am content with a maximum 1 year schoolblock, since when it expires it is most likely to be a different class accessing the computer/lesson which allows them to edit WP. If the following years batch are as or more disruptive, then they simply don't get the ascending level of blocks and are just kicked off for another year. I think the schoolblock template provides sufficient information for any student who wants to contribute positively to create an account. I am, I admit, intolerant of school ip's that have a history of disruption - beit major or minor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Tagging a sock

Hi... can you give me a pointer to any info that led you to this conclusion? I am investigating but would like to not duplicate efforts if it's being discussed elsewhere. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I would point you generally to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yiwentang, with particular regard to the first named account, but especially Sonya1985 (talk · contribs), and this diff. The Michelle-hine account is active in the the Affinity AfD, and the Sonya1985 one regarding WH's userpage picture. I admit I sort of worked backwards, in that I noted that WH and Zhebius were conflicted in an AfD - checked WH's contribs - saw the sock investigation - noted WH's general comments about AfD's of articles he created - noted the some of the accounts similar AfD voting patterns - saw Sonya1985 (strange to go to that place and complain for first ever edit, I thought) edits and went back to Jimbos' page and made my comments. I then included the account on the SPI and tagged the account. Um, that's it. Trust this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It does, thx, more soon. ++Lar: t/c 19:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a connection between Yiwentang or Sonya1985 (although I did see the connection between Sonya1985 and two other users that Luna refers to on Sonya1985's talk). I also don't see a connection between either of those two users and Zhebius. Zhebius is part of a sockfarm but I need to investigate further to decide if it's disruptive or not. I think the Yiwentang tagging on Zhebius's page probably isn't warranted. More later. ++Lar: t/c 19:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't investigate the relationships between the various accounts on the SPI page - I AGF'ed that WH knew what he was on about, I am not active in SPI matters. What I saw was the one account Zhebius linked to two of the listed accounts, but for different reasons. Unless your CU bit is strongly showing no or little link between the two types of anti-WH groupings then perhaps Zhebius is the missing link? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What I'm getting is that there are three different, almost certainly unrelated, sets of socks here. Zhebius in my view is less likely to be related to either of the other two than they are to each other. Could be wrong of course ...  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust Can you untag for now? ++Lar: t/c 21:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course... So, what particular kind of Pixie Dust is CU? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The non magic kind, of course... BTW full marks for the baseball ref, thought you lot didn't even know what that game is... ++Lar: t/c 21:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"Rounders in pyjamas"... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Another candidate, Bluescreenofdef (talk · contribs) - note AfD's for WH bands, and current ANI discussion about outing WH. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Also noted, this is a "mature" account; much like the one that is at the top of this section. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Will try to check but may not get it right away. ++Lar: t/c 23:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that was a twisted trail. Turns out Zhebius and Bluescreenofdef (and a bunch more) are all Prester John socks. See my block log just now. Also: [21] which doesn't PROVE anything but which is interesting, Prester is the pivot for all the rest. Which makes sense. See also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Prester John ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... A curious grouping of interests; Australian figures (Murdoch and two Prime Ministers, etc.), Obama, Affinity and other music groups, and WebHamster. Disparate, but will make locating other ones a little easier. Do the underlying ip's resolve to Australia? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC) Struck, I just looked at a deleted version of Prester John's userpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Black Dahlia Murder page...again

Hello, a few months back I brought up a user who kept blanking info/citation(s) in this article and pushed his POV.[22] Well, this regards the same issue again, but it looks to be a different user. His username is User:Uscalldaway, and he's doing the same thing as 72.220.252.190 (talk): The band in subject has multiple genres but he's been removing genre(s) in the heading that he disagrees with(eventhough there's citations), contradicting the citations/infobox. There's a chance he's using a sockpuppet alias "User:BetweenBuriedAndMe", because this mysterious user vandalized my page [23], is involved in the same POV pushing, and has a very limited edit history. I would very much appreciate your assistance in this matter. Thanks. --Danteferno (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have taken a look. Notwithstanding the vandalism to your page the other editors do have a point in that the reference used in the lede links to an error - as the cite cannot back the claim the removal is correct. If you can find a working link, then it can be replaced and discussed. I see, poor AGF besides, that there is talkpage discussion so I am not inclined to get involved in warning or blocking people at the moment. I also note that a band member refers to themselves as "melodic", so perhaps the source of that quote can be used as the reference (unless it is the same one as is broken in the lede, or it is not a reliable source). Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but there wasn't a citation for it at the beginning until the last edit by you (Danteferno). And if its in the infobox why does it need to be at the beginning? Once again, there is no point to having it there. cheese (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi....Danteferno says I am pushing POV with the whole thing on TBDM's page, but he keeps reverting it when several other people besides me do it. This isn't exactly an edit war between two people, but should it be looked at? I don't think I will revert him anymore, but when I did, in order to not have a sysop look at it he would wait a day or two before changing it. (Just a random side comment: do you consider it offensive when people call you a Limey? I've heard it before but don't really get it). cheese (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of contention? Is it the label "Metalcore"? Danteferno has a source that includes the label, so unless more sources can be found that do not use that label (or a better one where a member of the the band disagrees that they are metalcore) then it should be included. The best solution is to find 5 different good sources regarding the bands musical style and use the 3 terms that are most common between them - that way you get a representative music styling.

Limey is about as insulting as calling an American a Yank... it comes from the word "Lime Juicer", which meant British/Royal Navy sailor - who were issued with lime juice rations to overcome scurvy. Nah, I don't care what people call me - as long as they call me in time for dinner! LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add, LessHeard vanU, that in addition to the source for metalcore, TBDM's singer admitted in an interview that his band has metalcore/hardcore punk influences and that's it's an integral way they carry themselves. (Under the "Style and Influences" section of the page.) This is EXCELLENT justification to keep "metalcore" in. It is true that many bands don't like to be genre labeled, but it's even more true that metalcore bands and metalcore/melodeath crossover bands don't like association with anything "-core", even if they clearly have musical/collective involvement with "-core"/"the scene". Such is the case for The Black Dahlia Murder.

Is there any way The Black Dahlia Murder page could be semi-protected from newly registered or anonymous users? Nowadays, the other side of this disagreement has mostly been from IP's/new aliases.--Danteferno (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If a quote from the singer can be sourced, then it might be included as verification of a style - however, the singer would be considered a primary source so it needs to be buttressed by independent commentators. As for protecting the page, you should use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection where independent reviews will assess the need. I would comment that content disputes are rarely accepted as a reason unless the dispute is very disruptive - page protection is for serial vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You blocked one IP address but another one appeared to take their place

You blocked User_talk:76.209.186.241 recently, but now another IP address has taken its place. Special:Contributions/76.169.36.11 Both have the majority of their post at the Age of King's article, argue the same point, and keep adding in the same bit of information that everyone else reverts. Can you look at this person too. [24] Its obviously the same person. Dream Focus 12:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked for 3 months, per WP:DUCK. I agree that the link does not suffice for WP's purposes - it evidences that some users had a problem, but there does need to be third party reports for it to be mentioned. If the user finds themselves another ip addy, or a provider that allows them to switch addresses quickly, then I may have to semi-protect the page for a little while. Let me know what happens. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Semi-retirement

Wikipedia is becoming bad for my health. Thanks for all the good you have done, maybe see you around sometime. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a wise decision. All the ills of the world are not going to be resolved by battling within Wikipedia, since it is only an online encyclopedia project. That is not to say that there are not disputes that centre around some of the ills of the world, but they should not be the focus of an editors contributions. Take a break, and only come back when you feel it is right for everyone. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Which would look like being never. I have done what arbitrators have advised me to do, and been threatened with a block for doing it (pretty much as I had predicted). I don't want to continue this discussion here, as I don't believe that any discussion on-wiki is possible about the subject. DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, you know my email (but I should of course remind you that I have a little Caveat...) I would amend my previous message to say, "...come back when you feel it is right for you" because no-one is going to be right with everyone at any one time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edit

Hello, I understand that what I did would deserve a warning, but it seems to me that you editing my page, threatening me with your power, is rather unnecessary. Right above your post is another person with power (mod? -sorry I'm not too up to speed on the terms around here) telling me, and I'm sure you looked through my history to see what he originally said based on the fact that you stated you didn't care if I edited your post. Anyways, my point is that you should not try to fix what has already been fixed, unless you think I did something else offensive after being told off by the other guy.

And in response to Danteinferno's section just above, I am not a duplicate account of USCalldaway. He happens to be a sibling of mine so I decided to help him. Just as a good sibling would do. He actually has gotten into editing Wikiedia, I just don't care enough to edit more than random pages.

Thank you. BetweenBuriedAndMe (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Your responses to being told you were violating policy is what drew my further warning - as you will recall you amended the wording of the original - and I used the term "like" so to warn you against further vandalism going forward; and if you don't care for being "told off" then you shouldn't have done it in the first place. I also have a very hardline approach to anyone who uses homosexual references as a term of insult, so again its your own actions that have incurred my warning.

As for your sibling - I would point you toward both WP:MEAT and WP:BROTHER, since even if true two accounts editing from the same computer are treated as the same. As long as you don't "help your sibling" by editing the same pages you will be fine, but if not then it is entirely possible that one or both of your will be warned and blocked under WP:SOCK.

On Wikipedia you are free to make your own choices, but you then cannot complain because your decisions have been considered inappropriate. You can choose to find out the rules, or you can run the risk of being warned and blocked from editing. Your choice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Your post to my page spoke nothing of my amending of the other person's post. All there is you insulting me and telling me off extraneously. Even if you feel personally about homosexuals, you should not let that get in the way of your editing.

Furthermore, we do know about sock puppetry but do not have to worry about it since we have our own computers. BetweenBuriedAndMe (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

However, unless you have signed up to two different ISP's and each editor uses a different one, you will share the same ip address. Checkuser can easily see the ip behind each account name, and if they see the same ip based accounts are editing the same or similar pages they may assume it is the same person. Further investigation may conclude there are different computers being used, but the detail of the ip address may indicate it being one private residence. In such circumstances, CheckUsers may determine that the likelihood is that there is sockpuppetry - and it should be noted that WP:Meatpuppets are considered the same as socks where multiple editing of the same pages occur. So, I suggest that you are careful in how you act as regards your siblings edits in case someone believes you are co-ordinating your edits in violation of WP policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the homosexual insults; I take the same stance against people using "gay" as a term of insult as I do with "nigger" or "jewboy". Some people don't think calling someone gay is a particularly bad insult, but then neither do some people who use the words nigger/kike. Fuck them; if the intention is to hurt someone by denigrating another human being by inference then I don't care what term they use - they get warned and blocked if they do it again; and if they fuck about with the original warning then they get warned some more. If they don't like it, then they can find some other website they can be an arsehole at. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've actually always found it interesting how the English language has progressed with the term gay. From meaning happy to meaning just homosexual to stupid and homosexual. I think I remember seeing that you were from the U.K.? I'm not sure what the usage of the term gay is over there, but over here in the states it is quite common. So common, in fact, that groups have arisen with the sole purpost of taking the stance that is against using the word as meaning stupid. Conversely, I don't even feel comfortable typing nigger, because it is taken as such a bad word, yet it seems to be the most commonly used word of many Africans. BetweenBuriedAndMe (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Gay is much the same as queer; it was a word borrowed by the homosexual community to self identify, but once it got out into mainstream culture it became a negative insult - since it supposedly reflected a supposedly less worthy individual. People of recent African descent generally spell the word "nigga", not to get around laws regarding possible obscenity but to indicate both a pride in their past but also to move it away from the slaveowners version; they have taken ownership of a term of abuse. Yeah, I'm a Brit (or Limey, if you prefer) but I am as familiar with American culture as I am with gay lifestyle - just because I don't live there doesn't mean I don't know what is happening. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but your post on BetweenBuriedAndMe's talk page seems pretty offensive and... that. how would you like someone calling you a dick? Admins should lead by example not offensive tactics. I am extremely annoyed about this. cheese (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:DICK is an essay (which is why it is blue linked), and is a familiar term on WP - and you will note that I said "WP:DICK..." and not "a dick" - and is part of the language here. Admins should set an example, and one of those is "Assume Good Faith... but not to the point of stupidity". They should also be used to receiving insults and, although I despair at the lack of imagination used mostly, I am. So, you are annoyed; I am not here to mollify or mollycoddle you - I am here to help people build a better online encyclopedia. As I said, if you don't like being called out for your stupid edits then don't make them; you'd like to be praised for the good ones, wouldn't you, so the reverse applies. If you need help in making the encyclopedia then I will help you, otherwise I am not interested. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

When is it appropriate....

To refactor another editors talk page? [[25]] I have left a lvl 1 warning on this page for refactoring another users talk page that was clarly not vandalism. I have since been told that because I have a colorful history it is an invalid warning. I would like to have a few admin go and comment one way or another to this as I believe my actions were not only appropriate but very moderated. Thank You.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the situation if you wish, however the prevailing opinion has been if you make 60,000 edits it's ok to discount others polite opinion because "they have bit a newbie (once) and have poor grammer." This wasn't a personal issue but a disturbing attitude trend.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have responded on your talkpage - but I sort of agree that long term editors shouldn't be templated; they should be boilerplated with flashing neon lettering - they have been here long enough to know better... This is really rather unlikely to happen, so it is best that you take some lessons from this incident. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

TY for your time and opinions. I agree with the assessment and templating her was a mistake.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Block logs

It did not take long for my "substantial block log" to be used against me again. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I would comment that the context was that the writer was noting it was a third party who brought it up. As I was saying to the correspondent above, this crap happens and the best solution is to try and move past it - it happens, it has happened and you can bet your life it will happen again. If you can't let it slide, then just tell them how many barnstars/GA-FA's/DYK's etc. you have... (um, you do have them, don't you?) However, I think that playing "the better man" is usually most effective - it irritates the hell out of your opponents. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Using an editor’s block log to my mind usually means having a limited number of strings on your bow, but I get your point. I did let it slide, not bothered about it, and it got a royal slap down anyhow. Beside I don't have to play at being "the better man." I have the DYK's, working on a GA and because of my area of intrest not a hope in hell of a FA, not that is, using this user name. Attracts to much negative attention. Just don't let it be said I only come knocking when I get a block! I come here before I get one as well or when I feel one coming as well;) --Domer48_'fenian' 13:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of stubs

Wanted to inform you that I brought up a topic at ANI regarding the mass deletion of stubs. I think such actions require a bit more discussion, seeing as how much opposition to the idea came up when you proposed a bot to do the job. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I found it, thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Block of Kellyempire

I believe that Kellyempire09 (talk · contribs) may not have been threatening legal action, but rather responding to my indication that her actions would get her reported to an administrator (in effect, she was asking me not to take "legal action" against her). Her editing is troublesome, but I believe a shorter block rather than an indefinite block would be the appropriate solution. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it was not my reading of it - but since you are the other party to the discussion I will unblock immediately. Please note that I was reviewing as Kellyempire was reported to AIV, so in these cases there is a presumption of some "difficulty" with the editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that an unblock was the proper response. Rather a short block (72 hours, 1 week) to allow this user to "cool down". I was the one who reported this user, and was hoping for a short block, not an indefinite block. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A short block is one of a few hours. A 24/31 hour block is standard, and 3days/1 week is a long block. Anything longer is an extended block. Indefinite blocks can be shorter than a standard block, if the blockee appeals on the basis that they will no longer disrupt. If Kellyempire09 continues to disrupt after this unblock then make sure you give them a level4 vandalism warning before making a new report. I will not action any further report, so a fresh pair of eyes can review the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Carl Shroeder

++ Carl Shroeder ++ Why did you arbitrally delete this page - which had existed for a couple of years - without any discussion? Seems a bit presumptious of you.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 19:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Per the WP:CSD#A7 rationale, he does not appear to be notable enough to appear in the encyclopedia. Touring and recording with Sarah Vaughn is not of itself a claim of notability, nor is being a jazz-bop pianist. There was no references to indicate that he is held in any particular regard by Vaughn or any other major jazz luminary, there is no mention of what records he has played on and in what capacity (i.e. featured instrumentalist, arranger, soloist) and if he has recorded any by himself for an established label. Simply, being another sidesman is not claim to notability.

As for the other thing; yup, being able to delete stuff according to the criteria is something admins are permitted to do - it is one of the reasons why they need to be experienced and trusted, and get approval at WP:RfA. If you think you can improve the article to the point where the claim for notability is established and provide a few references to back the claim, I can userfy the article into your userspace. Please let me know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC) (oh, and please post to peoples talkpages - not their userpages.)

• He played on several Sarah Vaughan albums, which you would have known if you'd bothered to check first. Now all these albums will have red links when they used to have blue. Judging from various other comments here you seem to like deleting other's people's work without any discussion with them first. If you're a typical administrator I am only glad I am not one.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 14:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Various talk pages loosely related to Overstock

Concerning the following talk pages which you semiprotected in May, 2008:

• Talk:Securities fraud (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Patrick M. Byrne (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Overstock.com (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Gary Weiss (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Although all the articles concerned are currently unprotected, the anomaly of semiprotection on the talk pages remains. I've proposed that they might be unprotected and watched vigilantly (as indeed they should already be owing to the arbitration remedies in the Mantanmoreland case). --TS 22:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think 16 months, and the lack of ip's howling for to be permitted to post, indicates there is no further requirement for sprotection. I shall lift same immediately. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi LHvU - Just curious if you've continued to watch these pages over time. (If so, then thank you very much!) There's also a thread on WP:AN generally discussing Tony's unprotect requests. Risker (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I kept a weather eye out - but haven't participated in discussions. I don't recall much editing outside of Naked Short Selling anyway. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Dapani

Hello LessHeard vanU, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Dapani has been removed. It was removed by Kmusser with the following edit summary '(rm prod, place listed in Geonet and 18,000 google hits, I think it exists)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Kmusser before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Not that Kmusser has placed any of these listings on the stub... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please consider not doing this again. M'tsamoudou and Dapani are clearly existing places and any google search would have shown them to be. Himalayan 17:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Please consider placing references within the stub - Wikipedia requires that content is verifiable. I would also comment that you can search Loch Ness Monster on Google and get any number of hits; it doesn't mean that it exists, though.

If you are uncertain what the criteria for inclusion in the project is, why not take time to find out before posting inane comments on user talkpages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please actually do a google search before you propose to delete articles. I've just expanded Ecaterina Nazare and will DYK nominate it now and your claim "not notable only appeared in one film" clearly lacks understanding of the subject. A quick google search would have revealed notability. Maybe you should kindly ask the editor first before adding tags to try to improve it... Himalayan 21:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you misunderstand how Wikipedia works; notability is established by third party references and good sources, Wikipedia articles are required to have those cites if they to remain. It doesn't matter if the subject is notable, if the minimum requirements for an article are not met then they may be deleted - as is noted in the {{unreferenced}} template. If by PROD'ing them they get the references they need (and are available) then I shall certainly continue doing so - how many of the articles I have noted with an unreferenced template are being reviewed and brought up to standard? I would comment that I have found, from my list of mini-stubs that have not been edited in a year, many examples of expansion/unreferenced templates dating back to 2007. Polite requests for improvement do not seem to garner any action. My actions do, and the encyclopedia gets either a better article or the removal of a poor one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

*Sheepish grin* Er, thanks, sorry I missed this at the time... In the UK we don't have Labor Day, although the 1st May is sort of recognised as "Workers Day" but the holiday is simply known as May Bank Holiday. Anyhoo, thanks for the kind thought. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

203.217.31.42

I leave it up to you whether to block again. Enigma^msg 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was going to, but someone else got in a long sanction whilst I was reviewing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Economic Coordination Committee

Hello LessHeard vanU, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Economic Coordination Committee has been removed. It was removed by Phil Bridger with the following edit summary '(expand a little with sources and contest prod deletion of such an obviously notable subject)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Phil Bridger before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

User:Linas

He's blocked from his talk page too, so he cannot answer to you there. Besides, I don't think that poking him with the ANI thread would do any good at this point. If people on ANI decide to ban him, so be it. Otherwise, it's probably best that Linas returns to normal editing of his own accord. Pcap ping 21:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no need for anyone to be banned, so I am seeing if there is something that can be done to allow Linas to return to editing without such a possibility hanging over their head. Thanks for the heads up re the inability to edit the talkpage - I shall amend my note accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, in the interest of saving him from himself, I did tweak the block. Feel free to undo that tweak... Wknight94 ^talk 21:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 2) Besides, I've asked User:CBM and User:Michael Hardy to talk (privately) to Linas and ask him to calm down. Based on what I've seen, Linas is unlikely to heed advice from editors/admins he does not hold in high regard professionally. Pcap ping 21:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am content to let the talkpage "choke" remain in place, as I have offered the use of email (which also means I can ignore any invective and pass on only relevant comment). Since Linas has no idea who or what I am, I see no reason why he should not use my services - I am, after all, fucking clever myself... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

PLease Help

Hi. User:Wdl1961 Keeps adding categories to his sandbox and thus keeps showing up in categories. I've tried talking civilly but am getting accused of vandalism now so I think I'm done. Could you please take a look and help out here? Your wiki Kung-Fu is superior. Peace and Happy editing. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Level4im warning left, and I have put the page on my watchlist. If Wdl1961 goes and acts stupid elsewhere I am sure someone will let me know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who is reading this that is familiar with listing AfD's?

Can anyone pop over and sort out my pathetic attempts at listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida State Road 600A (2nd nomination) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 17? I have tried twice, and managed to place a red link there both times. I sodding did this with the sodding "How to" window open and sodding copied and pasted the appropriate sodding text over - sodding substituting the sodding page name, etc. - and it's fucking sodding was wrong... No wonder so many AfD's are malformed. Anyhoo, dear reader, most kind if you can help out this befuddled fool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You were writing "(2nd Nomination)". Twinkle does wonders, FWIW. Lots easier than manually hacking together the nom. –xeno^talk 21:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Mind you, can you imagine the damage I could cause with automated script? I think it best if I screwed up using the old slow methods... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically, you press a button "xfd", it asks you for a rationale, click, and you're done. I couldn't do without it. Give 'er a shot... –xeno^talk 00:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

We're grading on spelling now?

Careful now, if we start blocking people until they learn to spell properly, our block buttons will all wear out... Tony Fox (arf!) 07:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I can haz spelin blok noa? :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as soon as I find that elusive blick button... LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello LessHeard

I have never actually spoken with you, but I have admired your work from a far before. I am somewhat surprised by your endorsement of Kww in the RfC. One of the big flaws I see is that they make a big deal about A Nobody opposing candidates in RfA because of inclusion criteria. I see A Nobody was the 81st person to support you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/LessHeard_vanU_2#Support and nowhere does he bring up difference of inclusion opinion. In fact, they make it seems as if A Nobody opposes practically everyone because he has too extreme of an inclusion criteria and yet http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/rfap/index.php?name=A+Nobody confirms far more supports than opposes. And actually reexaming most of these, he typically cites a few different reasons for supporting or opposings. He only has out of nearly two hundred RfA votes only a handful, i.e. only those they cite in the RfC in which he strongly opposed based on weak AfD votes, but these choice examples are in actuality the clear minority approach he takes and a misrepresentation of how normally approaches RfA. Your thoughts? Ikip (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

My endorsement of Kww's, rather than DGG's, view is based upon the manner of his interactions when he is in dispute at AfD - and especially so in light of a RTV and undertakings regarding behaviour made previously. I make no distinction whether he might be termed an inclusionist or deletionist, and am only concerned with the disruption of the project by the exampled actions. Of course, my approval of A Nobody's interactions where he is non-disruptive should be as taken granted as everyone else's. As regards my RecfA, I should hope that those who supported did so because of an understanding I would not be biased towards supporters over opposers or non participants and would speak my mind only in view of the relevant facts in any matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User claims to be the subject of a bio

Hi, it is not an emergency but would you have a quick look at this a User is claiming to be the subject of the bio and claiming slanderous material, which he has removed, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have opined there. I am off to bed in a moment, so you may need to rustle up another admin if you need action. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sleep well. Best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A Study of History & Universal state

Universal state needs a Disambiguation page. It's a common expression, used by both Toynbee and Turing in completely different senses. But I'm now uncertain if creating a DAB page would violate the Restrictions imposed by the Restricting Administrator. Your advice would benefit us both - Wikipedia & me. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I note that the existing Universal state is a redirect, so if you were to create an article around the same term I suggest you amend it slightly to "Universal state (Toynbee)" and place an "other use" note at the top of it to the redirect article. You could always check with the Restricting Admin if this is okay, too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. He recently made it clear that I'm only - formally - restricted to the four (4) pages he explicitly enumerated. He also explained that he meant it as advice that I not edited any related articles to that family of four. But this issue has nothing to do with his concern. So I don't think I need to bother him on that. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• More specifically, I think I should create this too: Universal state (disambiguation). And this certainly does not require a #Redirect. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks to your constructive advice I've created the "Disambiguations" page, etc. (as you can see from the fact that what was Red now is Blue.) --Ludvikus (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• I just found this. That only means that no one supported me regarding the lifting of my Restrictions regarding nine (9) relating to historical revisionism. But I can understand that - having a Wikicriminality conviction record of being a general "disruptor." My great challenge is to demonstrate that this obstacle itself can be overcome. Ironically, another ADM had written that at Wikipedia, "actions speak louder than words." That's rather funny, don't you think? After all, Wikipedia is only "all about words" being put together into written sentences! --Ludvikus (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: And how do I know you not just a Supercomputer WP:Bot mascaraing as a Human being? --Ludvikus (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi.

Thought i would let you know i have reported you to another Admin for Un-civil behavior, bias, and perhaps an illegitimate block. --Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah? Well, I have undone my block and apologised to the editor - as for you; bring it on. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you look mean! I'm only 19... And as for reporting you, i shouldn’t have, should of directly come here and asked you about it. Was i mistaken or did you accuse me of being an English nationalist? :P well I’m really not, I’m Jewish and if anything I’m likely to be called a Jewish nationalist by allot of people that know me! (JERUSALEM IS OURS! Ect.)--Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I am not big on any kind of nationalism - but I was far too hasty with the buttons and I think I will step away from editing the 'pedia for the rest of the eventing. I shall keep an eye out in case anyone wants to bring up recent matters, though. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful Christmastime: help fixing bad move

LHvU, I've got a move-mess for you to cleanup if you don't mind...

User:Klow moved McCartney's song "Wonderful Christmas Time" to "Wonderful Christmastime" because he thought it was the proper song name. I have no beef with that. The problem is, there was a previous move in the opposite direction so he could not simply move the page; the target page already existed. So, he moved the contents of one page to the other and vice-versa. That means the edit history is lost. I told him that wasn't right and asked him to follow up and get an admin to fix it. He agreed, but he hasn't done anything about it as far as I can tell, and now new edits are taking place.

Do you have the time and inclination to fix this? — John Cardinal (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Time? Perhaps. Inclination? Absolutely! Ability? Er... I will have a quick look for the page to get things like this sorted - I know it exists, I just need to find it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, you need Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen - I think you were describing "cut and paste" move of content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to assume they were doing a good faith edit or just petty vandalism...--Frank Fontaine (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We should assume good faith always - something I ought to remind myself sometimes... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was describing a cut/paste move by Klow. I said "moved the content" but I meant Klow did it by cut/paste. I think it was good faith; the name favored by Klow appears to be the correct name. He faltered a bit on the move, but I think his intentions were good. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I see now; I was supposed to follow the procedure on that page. To tell the truth, I don't care enough to read that lengthy page and figure out what I need to do. Too much work for a "good samaritan" action. This is User:Klow's mess; I'll mention the page to him and if he does the work to get it fixed, fine. If not, too bad. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If he can't follow the guidelines then he can always post a request at ANI, noting his confusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles

Hello LessHeard vanU, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

• PROD removed from Fuafatu, by User:Phil Bridger, with summary '(contest prod - sourceable with trivial effort)'
• PROD removed from Fualopa, by User:Phil Bridger, with summary '(contest prod)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Pointer to discussion?

Thanks for your kind note on my page -- you have not committed any offense to me, I harbor no anger towards you. I choose to rain insults only upon those who have acted in unprovoked malice against me. You mention a discussion on my talk page, but didn't leave any pointers to it. Where can I find it? linas (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, LessHeard vanU. You have new messages at Russavia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed category

You might wish to join us in Category:Wikipedians Who Can't Remember What They Were Doing A Moment Ago. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Why what have I done that I should join such a category? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

...

D'oh! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Mark, been a while since we worked on anything together - and I noticed you taking an initiative on something recently. I was wondering if you might have any thoughts on this. Thought it might be a direction you'd be interested in. — Ched :  ?  15:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have responded at AN. I have my doubts that the admin community will be proactive in having their responsibilities defined and their excesses open for sanction, though. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Appeal to watchers of this page

Supposedly I have 206 (and I wish to apologise for the standards around here, I shall continue to attempt to lower them despite the efforts of others) accounts watching this page, and I would ask if any of you have any knowledge of proposed policy pages or guidelines regarding defining, supervising, removing, or otherwise making accountable the actions of admins and others with access to enhanced flags. I am going to chuck a few ideas at Jimbo in the (forlorn) hope that a process can be put in place to regulate the actions, behaviours, and status of those sysops and such that no longer have the confidence of some of the community. Or perhaps you have your own idea's/suggestions? I am already aware of User:Roux/RFA-reform, and am asking a couple of other editors if they are willing to include their pages. If nothing else, if I can accumulate half a dozen proposal pages devoted to this concern it should indicate that there is sufficient historical disquiet to indicate that there might be a need for a mechanism or process that falls short of an ArbCom desysop request but has more teeth than a Conduct RfC or voluntary recall process. Thanks in anticipation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Tony1/AdminReview? –xeno^talk 19:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have asked Tony if he is happy to be included and am awaiting his response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Administrator Review (note: different than WP:Administrator review) but it is kinda stale. –xeno^talk 19:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I know of the Roux one, the Tony one, and I believe that EVula also had one somewhere - I'll see if I can find the link. — Ched :  ?  19:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• User:EVula/opining/RfA overhaul — Ched :  ?  19:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ta. You familiar with closing AfD's? I don't think I ever have... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmmm ... not really my strong-suit. I've actually "closed" very little since I started here. — Ched :  ?  20:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct was a 2006 "proposed policy pages or guidelines regarding defining, supervising," - "or otherwise making accountable the actions of admins" that Ched and I are trying to unmothball. It was based on the Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll in 2006. ϢereSpielChequers 10:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw this when Ched posted on AN. I am in broad agreement with both having an "official" definition of sysop responsibilities and those enumerated there - since as usual those pages are descriptive rather than prescriptive. I think that the Code of Conduct could be the basis against which RfA's and desysop procedures could be measured against. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

On another matter …

Talk-page lurker here, no issues with the standards, you could tidy up now and again I suppose though. As you're the first admin who I found on my watchlist who appears to be online, any chance that you could close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Rock (musician)? I filed it last night, and should have thought about it some more, have now withdrawn the nomination, and I have no idea how to do a non-admin close. Any of the other 204 are welcome to have a go also,  pablo_hablo. 19:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Xeno, and all the best to the other 203.  pablo_hablo. 20:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. –xeno^talk 20:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

ok

Mark: Yes, point him to it, although the caveat is that it's not quite complete and needs to be expressed in fewer words. He won't be so keen on the elaborateness of it; but I feel that a certain amount of bureaucratic structure helps to streamline the process in the doing. The expectation is that most cases would end at Stages 1 and 2, thus saving coordinators' input.

In practical terms, the reason I haven't taken it further in so long is that I don't want to run it and coordinators need to be skilled in certain ways. I'd be happier with appointed coordinators, not elected, and as a community-driven process without ArbCom, elections would be necessary. It needs teeth, and only ArbCom can provide this. ArbCom is the perfect body to run it (as a subcommittee, probably, coopting arbs and non-arbs, and I'd hope a good proportion of non-admins, to gain credibility in the community).

This goes to a further point. Arbs are burnt out; their job is mammoth. They need to coopt others, delegate more, as well as to streamline their own bloated, chaotic hearings process. If that can be got into order, ArbCom might then be in a much better position to perform (or at least supervise) processes such as AdminReview. Tony (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. While I have a personal preference for AdminReview, and would think it the best process in dealing with complaints against admins for "failure to maintain expected standards" I can see that it might be best as part of a package that includes Roux's proposal and the points expressed by EVula. I will give it a few hours for other suggestions before I present Jimbo with the various links, and see if there is any appetite to push through some sort of policy process that incorporates these ideas. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Good point.[26] Durova³²⁰ 14:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, its the old fashioned "Content and not the Contributor" meme. I happen to subscribe to it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Fresh water supply district

Hello LessHeard vanU, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Fresh water supply district has been removed. It was removed by Colonel Warden with the following edit summary '(+ citation -tag &c.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Colonel Warden before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Flyer22

I have said, what I needed to say, and if Flyer22 has too, then it can be closed. Though from your last post, I am wondering whether you have understood the whole chain of events. For one thing, I did not replace my notice. I posted it once only. Never mind. --Law Lord (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

rfa reform

Please do. I'll be looking at my watchlist from time to time, but my hours right now are totally insane. I do have the next two days off, thank God, so I may be able to participate in discussions. Pls also see this, which is of more than passing relevance. There's also a thread on AN right now (started by Chillum I believe Ched Davis) regarding the Admin Code of Conduct--relevant to both pages. → ROUX ₪ 04:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi LessHeard - I'm willing to help out. I'll start poking around for former proposals. -->David Shankbone 20:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll hold putting together a list of "relevant links" (and sorting a rough guide how they might be stitched together to form a basis of a proposed policy) for a couple of days. If you exhaust your research parameters before then, let me know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense intended to anyone ... but PLEASE don't confuse User:Ched Davis with User:Chillum roux. please? — Ched :  ?  21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. → ROUX ₪ 21:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have difficulty not confusing the two and Cheese'n'Chilli Bakes, especially when I am hungry... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

smiles .. np Roux. Not that I have any problem with him, I think he's a good guy and all ... just that we often tend to have very different viewpoints. I think we work well together, and he's always been very civil to me and all - just 2 very different people. LOL at the Cheese'n'Chilli ... I hadn't thought of that ;P — Ched :  ?  21:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

attitudes

I just read this discussion with some interest, because I have also had some slightly irritating experiences with F22 with regards to editing policies. I'm a relatively new user so I'm not totally up on all guidelines and such, so I'm asking you for some help and advice regarding how to proceed without either getting my head bitten off by F22 or bringing anything up on any group board anywhere.

Without going into too many details at this time, I felt that her words to me in 3 recent edit comments were slightly inappropriate, if not incorrect altogether. I've been trying to ignore her attitude, but I believe that this enforcement (and the following one) of the Repeated links section of the MoS to be over-zealous since it has resulted in removals from the main text of all links to another page -- the only one left now is in a box that is hidden by default for most users! I have been reluctant to approach her directly about this because I don't even know if I'm correct in thinking that the links she'd removed were actually useful, especially considering that the page is so long now. Plus, I definitely don't want to get into an argument with her about this -- improving pages is supposed to be fun, not stressful :-(

Can you help somehow? I'm not sure what to do at this point :-( Thanks, Shymian (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I presume bullet 2 of the "Repeated links" section is the bone of contention - can you show me the link to the primary use of the name is; I presume from your comments it is an infobox or similar? I can only take this forward once I know what the situation is. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, even though bullet 2 certainly applies, she was claiming that bullet 1 was the issue: "Wikipedia says that we do not have to link these people every time their names are mentioned again or in close section by" (from her first removal). I restored the links here stating that I could not find the links anywhere in "a closeby section", but she removed them again here while lecturing me that she was following "Wikipedia formatting style". This one then completely removed all links to Colby except for what was in the info box (sorry, I don't know how to show that) and this one removed other links to Chandler Enterprises that are rather far away from the infobox and the only still-existing link. And yes, the only link to Colby is now in the infobox, which I was only able to locate by doing a search in the browser :-( BTW, you can probably also follow this just by viewing the history of the page if you got lost from my poor recounting, since she and I made 14 of the last 15 edits to the page. Hmmm, since she's made so many of the changes to that page, I wonder if she resents other people trying to improve it?  :-( Anyway, thanks in advance for anything you can do! Shymian (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have posted at their talkpage, forwarding and backing your concerns regarding interpretation of the MoS. I have commented also generally regarding their perceived interaction with you. While doing this I looked through your contribs, and would note my mild concern at the number of times you have recently taken your issues with other editors actions to third party admins or experienced contributors. While admins (and others) are generally pleased to help others in their WP activities it is expected that contributors should bring their concerns about others directly to the attention of that party if there is to be the opportunity of consensus and understanding being built. Without trying, and trying again, it is difficult to build up the editing relationships that help drive article creation. I think you should address some of these concerns yourself, directly, without the proxy of others in the future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I point out to Shymian that my anger/disgust with User:Law Lord was/is completely justified due to the links and current arguments I provided in that discussion. I also point out that character Colby is not only linked in the infobox, but where she is first introduced (in the Official death of Babe section). Shymian should also look to my talk page about all this. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry for the delay in responding -- real life issues interrupted).

LessHeard (is that the proper way to address you?), thank you for your attempts to communicate with Flyer22. Unfortunately, the result appears to be a little less than desirable -- to me, the "message" she left on my talk page felt to me more like a condescending lecture along with a demand for an apology, saying that I "should trust the judgement of more experienced editors", and did not seem to indicate any willingness to entertain alternate views. That type of confrontational attitude was what I was trying to avoid when I'd asked you for advice on how to approach this situation.  :-(

As for your concern about the number of times I've approached other editors: it had previously been because I did not know the mechanics involved with performing specific actions, from "basic" stuff like how to create a ref properly, to more involved actions like undoing a change when there have been intervening modifications already made. The two other times I recall asking about a specific editing "style", if you will, is because I did not know if what was being done was typical of Wikipedia editing (because if it were anywhere else, I'd know what to make of it!) In one case, the admin concurred with my feeling that it was detrimental to the health of Wikipedia, and was able to take steps to correct that behavior -- something that I would never have been able to do even if I had approached the person directly. In the other instance, I was unable to revert the undesirable change, and because I did not relish the thought of having to re-type everything in again, I was trying to find someone who could help restore the text for me.

Flyer22 is the first (and so far only) editor who has objected to any of my suggested changes, every time choosing to revert those changes with nothing more than basically a "because I said so" in the comments. From reading about her interactions with other users, I had really only been looking for some reassurance that my feelings regarding the usefulness of links did have some merit. The first person I'd asked was unable to give me a yes or no and did recommend that I ask F22 myself, but because I was not sure if my interpretation of the guidelines was accurate, I was basically in a holding pattern when I happened upon the discussion which led me to asking you for advice on how to approach this.

I was not explicitly asking for someone to act as a proxy, but regardless I do very much appreciate your trying to do so. I wish the outcome had been less confrontational, but at this point I think I'm more inclined to just leave that article alone at this time. If she is not even open to considering the views and opinions of a neutral third-party admin on how an article can be improved; is unwilling to regard the views of a newcomer as having any merit; and is/was more intent on pointing out not just how many great and wonderful articles are that she has created, but also where and in how many ways I (and you) were incorrect, then I can think of more enjoyable ways to spend my time.

I guess after this, I should be able to deal with any other editor-related conflicts now! :-)

Thanks again for your help on this!

To Flyer22: I did try to follow what your differences are/were with Law Lord, but honestly, I really don't care who was right or wrong in that debate because it has nothing to do with whether or not my placement of the links was useful. The primary reason I read it was because your name was on there, and I wanted to see if I was the only one who reacted to your statements in the way that I do. As for missing the only other place where Colby was linked, I'm sorry for missing it but that would just seem to illustrate my point even more -- if I can't even _find_ where the link was in the text, then doesn't it seem like it's time for a another more easily-locatable link? After all, isn't that what the whole idea of the wiki is, to be able to _easily_ jump from one page to another?

I will in the interests of "collegial editing" make an attempt to present my views to you on your talk page, but would like to clarify one point here because I do not wish to engage in a similar-themed debate in two locations. This is in regards to your misleading statement about reporting "everyone who challenges" me -- in point of fact, YOU are the first and only editor on Wikipedia (that I've seen so far, anyway) to reject edits that I felt were needed, and I did not know that asking for advice on how to approach you given the reservations that I had, would be construed as "reporting" you. You are, after all, the first Wikipedia editor who I would have been approached regarding what I felt was incorrect behavior, and I wanted to make sure that I was "following the rules" and staying within boundaries when I did so.

I will add my comments regarding the links on your talk page.

Thanks, Shymian (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Shymian, my message on your talk page was not meant to be a condescending lecture along with a demand for an apology. Additionally, I am only open to entertaining alternate views on Wikipedia when I feel they make sense Wikipedia-wise. I stated on my talk page that I might have been wrong about the Tad Martin instance, but certainly not about the Adam Chandler instance; and I explained why on my talk page. The Colby instance is also now addressed on my talk page. I am most likely the first (and so far only) editor who has objected to any of your suggested/implemented changes because only a few "soap opera editors" usually follow correct formatting here at Wikipedia and significantly improve these articles. Those editors include myself, TAnthony, Animate, Rocksey, two others from Wikipedia:WikiProject EastEnders...known as Gungadin and Trampikey, and now yourself. I have only reverted your linking changes to the JR Chandler article. You make it seem as though I reverted every change you have made to that article. I actually appreciate your help around here with soap opera articles in general.

I am not intent on pointing out "just how many great and wonderful articles" there are that I have created. I have not technically created many; I have rather created a few and significantly improved some. My point was to point out that the JR Chandler article is not on my "top list" in any way and that I am not obsessed with that article and have no reason to be, despite the opposite having been implied by you two. Flyer22 (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct methods of address

I answer to almost anything, especially if followed by "...dinner!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Okay, you got a smile out of me with that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Gotta agree with her there! As long as you're not on the menu, right?  ;-) Shymian (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)