Archives

"won" "too" three "fore" "fie've" "sicks" "'S 'eaven!" "ate" "Nein!" "TEN...sion..." "eel 'eaven" "'twere elve'"

Archives

Abtract, Collectonian & Sesshomaru Freemasonry

Thanks and yes they are being encouraged to come them to come to the articles talk page. I will do more along those lines either tonight or tommorrow. There are definite signs that this is merely a case of newbies not understanding wiki policy. Thanks again for your help. Albion moonlight (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been requested for unprotection. I am inclined to grant the request but given the circumstances would like your opinion. (If replying, please drop by my talk page.) Stifle (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Naked short selling. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought I would follow up on unprotecting the article. Cheers --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You look pretty busy, so things are probably getting lost in the shuffle. I'm going to semi-protect the article(s) for now; feel free to stop by if you think that's unacceptable. I'll keep an eye on them for a while to make sure that peeps are behaving. --Marumari (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm just going to do it to naked short selling, since I'm more familiar with the article. I'll let you take care of Securities Fraud. --Marumari (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your clearing the recent vandalism. Thanks again.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he starts in on his "The CW" antics again, we'll be right back on the WP:ANI page again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I advised him that if he stays away from that, I'll stay away from him. "Good faith" has nothing to do with it. I don't know him from Adam. All I know is that he's wrong about this "The CW" nonsense. As long as he leaves that alone, I should be able to leave him alone. The rest of his edits are about technical details about the radio and TV stations that I assume or hope he knows what he's talking about. It's when he gets into this "grammar" stuff that he gets himself in trouble. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of "good faith", his first act if and when he comes back should be to wipe the personal attacks off his talk page. Or you could do that, as it's a rules violation, yes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are against the rules. Why does he get to decide when or if to remove them? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what he calls me. But he named 6 others, and they might. And as User:Neil pointed out to me a couple of weeks ago, even if I don't care about a personal attack, it's against the rules and should not be tolerated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's back, and promising to resume the edit war. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And having been sufficiently rebuked for daring to continue to speak out against this guy's behavior, I've had enough of this topic. I have marked the issue resolved, removed my comments from his talk page, and am no longer watching either his page or his edits. He wins. If our paths never cross again, it will be too soon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(You have archived your page, so I shall respond here) Him or me? Ah, well... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean him, not you. :) Currently there may be only one or two articles he and I have in common, but not for this issue. And for safety's sake, I won't say which ones. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. If you have further probs it looks like OhnoitsJamie has stepped up to the plate. I will be happy to review as well, but I generally issue indef blocks on the basis that I will overturn if the offender says they will try to sort things out (I don't tell them this, of course, when I do) but I also unblock on the basis that I will re-instate it if they don't live up to their promises (and I don't tell them that, either). Since I am not involved in the content dispute I can afford to look at the "what's best for WP" question, but I am aware it can be frustrating for those that are involved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will maintain a very low profile on this one, as the other admin has promised to watch it. I have other things to do. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be starting again - he just reverted someone on WPSG, but he slipped in a "CW" only change, which was NOT part of the other edit he reverted. I've corrected his "mistake", but this bears watching. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see Kingturtle has protected the page. Kudos. One mole whacked. Now let's see a show of hands from anyone who's surprised that Rollosmokes continued his The CW "grammar" crusade... Anybody? ... I didn't think so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's still at it with the "CW" changes... - and again... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now protected. I suggest that some form of discussion regarding what the consensus is for the proper infobox titling is started on the talkpage. In the meantime, I am trying to see if someone might be amenable to asking Rollosmokes to leave the matter alone. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other two articles are not protected. Good luck getting somewhat to write something to him that he will listen to. It won't be me. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today he got his second indefinite block in the space of a week. Is that a record? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I, his Number 1 "vulture", did nothing to him this time. Must have been one of the other "vultures". Of which there appear to be a growing list. But all is not lost. It's an inspiration. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm surprised at is that it happened so fast. You'd think he would lay low for awhile. Meanwhile, I don't know if he's tried to get on today, but if so, he shouldn't be surprised, especially given his complaints that everyone's watching him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to the blocking admin OhnoitsJamie. He promised to block if the disruption continued. The user promised to continue the disruption. Both of them kept their promises. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking admin also wiped the talk page, including the "final shot" at all of us "vultures". Finis. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it was FirsRon and KingTurtle, and maybe some others. They are to be commended for giving this guy every chance. He let them down. It happens sometimes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rollosmokes looks to be back, this time as User:Black Waves. I've moved the issue back to WP:ANI. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BB, is you naked? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AlasdairGreen27 and his compliants are sockpuppets! PIO is a regular editor because his Italian persecutor user:Snowolf is retired! I am not from Milan, I am not PIO and I add links under wiki rules: if you don't like my IPs then can you add links interlanguages in related articles! Open your eyes! 17 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.87.9 (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to archive - Abtract, etc.)

Since you filed the RfAr, I thought you might be interesting in chiming in here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. –xeno (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks I was typing to you as you were typing to it. –xeno (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I edit conflicted twice while posting there. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...is asking for you to review the block. I've made my opinions known there. –xeno (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded there to the unblock request. I think I have steered a middle course; I doubt if anyone is going to like it much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and again

your presence is requested, at the usual venue. –xeno (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hopefully the peeved factor was not apparent until, possibly, right at the end. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to apologize to you personally, as Bart's mentor, for having blocked him the first time as, you are correct, I should have brought the continued incivility to you first rather than submitting the block myself; it was an error in judgment and I will be sure not to make the same mistake again, particularly since his talk page will now be thoroughly watched by non-involved admins. I would guess, from the reason that Ryan protected the talk page, that he's a little more than peeved himself. Cheers, CP 22:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did we ever decide whether or not he was allowed to reorganize talk pages? Because he's done it again. I have not brought this up with Bart yet because I am unclear if it is a violation or not and don't wish to continually disturb everyone by constantly posting minor things on his talk page. Cheers, CP 15:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the comments by User:Ryan Postlethwaite - an advantage of being British is that I don't need to check the spelling of that username... - recently on Barts talkpage it seems that he can. I think perhaps taking a chill pill and only reacting when he seriously steps out of line (if he does, per AGF) would be the best for both of us. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Cheers, CP 16:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it is minor, but it is more then just moving stuff around. why would someone edit a time stamp, i don't get it. Boneyard (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can explain this as well: "Captain Celery" at first forgot to sign and only did so a minute later on, hence. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But is it important? No. Is it aggravating? Sometimes, for some people. Why do you insist on doing it? Dunno, it isn't as if you need the talkpage edit credits... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your guess is as good as mine actually. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Again

This time far more serious than refactoring talk pages - he has now taken up posting comments from the indefinitely blocked User:Ryoung122, despite a warning and agreement not to. Until he (Young) is unblocked, I believe that this applies to that. Cheers, CP 20:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I already pointed out on my own talk page, first of all Robert Young isn't mentioned at all, and secondly, it's proof referring to Laurent Toussaint investigating Pierre Picault. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that, until he is unblocked, that his indef. block amounts to a ban. The Canada Jack reference that Bart is making can be referenced here, where my assertion seems to be supported. I do, however, agree that more review from different people would be prudent. Cheers, CP 20:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to a dispute between Canadians. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems awfully complicated for a borderline infraction. I'm sure that Bart understands now that it's not to be done. If it continues to happen, I will go for what you say. Until then, we'll let something slide for him (for the 100th time). Cheers, CP 20:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It won't happen again. Extremely sexy (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think it is a very important option and probably a question that needs answering. A good faith assumption and Bart's message that it won't happen again is enough for me. What I might do, however, is get a discussion going on the policy page for some community input (without mentioning any names of course), as it would be nice to have some definitive consensus, even if it's from a non-admin point of view. I have a few real life tasks to attend to at the moment, but I'll let both you and Bart know when I start the discussion if you'd like some input. To clarify, by the way, I mean input on the question of whether or not the policy I pointed out applies to indef. blocked users as well. Could be an important distinction! Cheers, CP 20:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to archive)

the user in question was blocked over WP:DISRUPT, not because they were in a "content dispute". See the reply on my talkpage. dab (𒁳) 16:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I don't know if you care or not, but I wanted to let you know that while I maintain my reasons for the block, I have no problems with your unblocking, especially in the manner you did so. Just FYI. Tan ǀ 39 21:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if anybody was going to unblock, I'm glad it was someone I trust. And your response (20:55, 20 July) to my comment made me a bit less concerned. That simple Google search I did showed "Boy2Boy" is more specific a phrase than just "Boy" and it bothers me where, say, "User:Boy4GayPride" wouldn't. "Boy2Boy" seems to be about "cruising", "hooking up", call it what you will. That's still pretty offensive, it seems to me. Is there a more innocuous definition that's used more often? I'm going to think about challenging it at WP:UAA. If I do, I'll leave a note here for you. Whether procedure was followed correctly or not in the block isn't the kind of thing I know anything about, although I've been supportive of the idea of giving people warnings in the past.

I just sent you an email. These (really horrible pics) illustrate it (sorry, indulge me):

Image:NewCanaanCTHighSchEntrance07252007.JPG

Image:NorwalkCTFormerPoliceHQ09032007.JPG

Since you've unblocked, I hope you'll monitor B2B's future edits, including the sourcing.

Regards, Noroton (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It remains to be seen whether Boy2boy resumes editing. Sometimes a posthumous reduction of sentence to 20 years less time "served" while dead is a hollow judgement... but WP is not life and death. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you spare the time to give me a very brief idea of how you fixed the vandalism at United Arab Emirates a short time ago, and how it had been perpetrated? It appeared to be transcluded and template based, and I'd got the idea it might have been done via the hatnote, but you'd sorted it and restored the hatnote before I was able to track down the offending edit, and I just can't work out what you did. I do a fair bit of anti-vandal work and I'm trying to improve my understanding of the more subtle stuff. A response here is fine. Thanks for any help. Karenjc 13:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply and for the link to the instructions, which helped a lot. I've checked through the edit histories of the templates transcluded to United Arab Emirates and found a couple which were vandalised by this particular user in the past day or so, using two IP addresses (both already blocked). Seems like if you bring up an edit history as your instructions say, find the list of transcluded templates and then visit the ones not marked "protected" or "semiprotected" in turn, checking their history for recent IP edits, you can find the source of the trouble fairly fast. If no joy, try the semiprotected templates and look for suspicious user edits. Revert, arrange page protection, and purge.

For what it's worth, I think you're right that the trouble had been fixed and your actions purged the page cache. The guilty template seems to have been Template:Wikia or Template:Monarchies. I feel a lot more clued up now. Thanks again for your time. Karenjc 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to make a formal proposal or something? Is AN/I the place for proposing and discussing community bans? --Blechnic (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, I just flung it up on AN/I.[1] It's time for everyone to stop wasting time with this woman and get back to writing an encyclopedia and cleaning up her mess. --Blechnic (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. Wikipedia user talk pages are not on-line private chat forums for people to kid around and post personal attacks. Everyone is so gung ho on chatting with her, let them find a place to do it, not Wikipedia. Indeed it's time to be done with her, and no one else is bothering to get it over with. She had nothing to say in her articles, that's why she made stuff up. She has nothing to say worth affording her space for on her user talk page, either. --Blechnic (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, I am overly fond of absurdist literature. --Blechnic (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request for arbitration which you commented on has been opened, and is located here. Any evidence you wish to provide should be emailed directly to any sitting Arbitrator for circulation among the rest of the committee. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 14:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you please expand on your edit comment about the Hal an Tow. What are you thinking? Thanks. FootballPhil (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a monster. Quite. :) Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you've forgotten here is where you made comments against me

I gave it a couple of hours and then went back to reread your comments towards me. They were inappropriate, lacking faith, and insulting. No, they aren't against WP:Civil in my opinion, but they are completely dickardly.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Beam 00:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to understand that other peoples perception of what constitutes an insult, where their cultural and ethnic background is dissimilar to that of yours, is entirely your own affair - and if you are so insensitive to others pointing out that an opinion based entirely on your individual perceptions based on limited personal experience is unworthy of being disseminated on a forum that is frequented by English speaking peoples of a wide variety of cultures and nations, then you may be best advised not to frequent the place at all.

There will be no apology, since I am prepared to stand behind my comments. An insult is that which ferments discontent and alarm upon the recipient, and is not the arbitrary consideration of a third party who may not be familiar with the term, its history and the perception of it to other people. Your "morality" where nigger and kyke, etc, are considered abusive, but not that of "red headed" (which I didn't know was a term of abuse, until today, for Indonesian people), is inappropriate within a website that has an international editorship, and placing a value system which determines that your impression of insult is somehow more relevant to that of the insulted individual is more than just contrary to the precepts in the countering of racism - it embraces it (although I am certain that it is through ignorance than bad faith.)

Lastly, do not again question my antipathy toward racism or any type of phobia based on culture, faith (or lack of), lifestyle, gender, sexuality, or whatever. It is not something that I am generally prepared to be civil about which, under the circumstances, I am endeavouring to be in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you missed the point, didn't understand what I had said in that thread or said here. And your "lastly" is so out of place, it's actually strange. Maybe you want to go read that thread again. Than read my comment here. Than maybe strike out half of what you just said. Just a suggestion. Beam 04:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, lucky you, it's from me! Risker (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, is Lar hiding or something..? LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A message from Steven Fruitsmaak.

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you blocked a user FResearcher recently, and I commented on the block. Would appreciate your reply. Thanks. Lakinekaki (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will respond there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how I loathed the idea of doing it, but I've gone and done it (182 refs 'n-all.) The problem is that I'm getting the feeling that user Nandesuka is trying to start a fight. I put this down to the fact that I was instrumental in getting Jeremy Clarkson booted off GA status a while ago (his contributions show that the article is #1 on his list.) I mentioned this, but he fobbed it off by saying he contributes to lots of articles. I think he's trying to goad me, but I'm not biting. Can you have a look and tell me if I'm talking a load of shite or not? I'll have to wait a bit for "that bloody woman" to get a review, so I'm relishing it very much. Ta, very much,

It's calmed down a bit, funnily enough. Although you never know... :)--andreasegde (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thought you might be interested in this new article by a new editor Phillips sound recording services, It was speedied once (under different capitalization), I have done a quick wikify on it, but it would benefit from someone with a bit more knowledge of the Liverpool music scene of the era than me having a look at it. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you're pretty familiar at this point with my complaints about User:Dwain. For somebody who wants to be "left alone" he's going out of his way to get in the middle of things. He has had in the past a bad habit of stashing pages and information in his user and talk page revisions (which was part of my initial complaint).

I'm going to be brief, but I need to outline a bit to indicate why I think there's a problem: I was doing a cleanup of some of the Cat Freemasonry pages for accuracy, etc., and as I was doublechecking the Anti-Masonry cat, I found John Salza. I looked at his article, and he claims to be a Mason and is on the List page, but the only source is what Salza says on his own webpage. I made a note of this on the List talk (because his claims are odd and records exist even if he quit), and Blueboar decided to prod it as nn. This all well and good, but then I find this diff followed by this diff, where Dwain has cut and pasted the Salza article into his talk and then undid the revision to hide it.

This is exactly the behavior I noted in my recent complaint and in the past. My concern is this: what possible reason could he have to do this if he has no agenda and "wants to be left alone," as he claims? This strikes me as either going out of his way for no apparent reason, or keeping an eye on things that he claims he isn't. He's toeing the line here and I'm pretty sure he knows it. Is there a policy governing what I see as misuse of talk? MSJapan (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping an eye on it, and having looked further into it, he started the article, but again, despite wanting to be "left alone", he's creating and maintaining articles on Catholic anti-Masons? As per the AfD, I'd also note that I'm getting a little tired of JASpencer's inflammatory statements. His anti-POV is blatant, though he tries to pretend he's neutral and that the rest of us are whitewashing. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I invite you to sort out a recently problem encountered on the Siouxsie and the Banshees. Here it is. On wikipedia, I remark that there's the following consensus  : on a page about a band, one doesn't publish a picture when only the singer appears on it with no other band member on his/her sides. I read many bands pages and that's always the case on wikipedia. Here are the instances I took, the band pages about The Cure, The Smiths, Joy Division, killing Joke, etc. So, I guess, it's better that pictures that only show the singer of a band, are not selected on a band page. Yet, recently, people who contributed nothing on the 'siouxsie and the banshes' page, like a user called JD554, threatened me on my user page from edit blocking, plus he posted a weird comment on the history SATB page as if he had one thing against my old contributions. I know that this person was in the past the only one user on The cure page who took defence of user wesleydodds on may 17 th 2008 for a editorial content. So, I wouldn't state that wesley dodds and JD554 are friends or the same user but it seems strange that JD554 arrives on SATB page where as he wrote nothing on that page???. Two other users who also contributed nothing on "Siouxsie and the banshees" page wrote that they wanted this pic. I explained my point about why I thought this pic was not goog for the SATB page : you'll find my answers at the history SATB page. Thanks to let me know how to resolve this. carliertwo (Carliertwo) 05:09, 1 august 2008 (UTC)

I will look over this this evening (my time). LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might have a potential move-vandalism and general vandalism problem. BeerBelly82, TitleRanch903, and BuffaloSam. The latter of the three left Wikipedia in December of 07 and came back yesterday. The others appear to be new accounts.

BeerBelly82 moved the Johnstown/Altoona Television Market template to Template:Johnstown/Altoona/State College TV, though I can find nothing to show "State College" is part of the official Nielsen "name" for that market. All of the pages that linked to the old template were then changed. TitleRanch903 appears to be following in this changing of old templates.

BuffaloSam has moved two radio market templates to "names" that don't appear to match the official Arbitron "name". This user also changed all of the pages that linked to the old template.

To me, this seems like move-vandalism and general vandalism. I could be wrong, but as Kubigula and Firsfron are out, I bring it to your attention. Thanks...NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this has been sorted out by another admin. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I don't know what time it was for you when you posted, but it was gone midnight here in Blighty when you posted... Thanks for the reference, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was 7:35pm when I posted :) All turned out well. Take Care and Have a Great Sunday...NeutralHomer ^T:C 15:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which did not succeed with 30 in support, 28 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks again for the support!

—CycloneNimrod^Talk? 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your effort is coming back like this.[2] from Carl Daniels (talk · contribs). More information would be here.[3]--Caspian blue (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, however, I receive the same complaint from another user, Btzkillerv (talk · contribs) like this.[4]. I'm so curious as to how the bashing comment from indef.blocked user would meet a freedom of speech. Well, the user certainly received Lucy's comment because of this. Given the comments like racist attacks by the user,[5][6][7][8][9], I would not wonder why Btzkiller highly thinks of "freedom of speech". Can you take a look at these? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented regarding the removal of personal attacks from peoples talkpages (whether they like it or not) at Btzkillers talkpage. I agree that the last two examples you gave are inappropriate (the rest seem to be from different accounts - but no less appropriate) but I am not looking to be handing out blocks tonight. It is late evening in the UK and I am retiring for the night, so please try to stay out of fights and if you do need admin assistance while I'm offline it will have to be someone else. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I hope they understand your instruction. --Caspian blue (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Arataman_79#responding_to_the_issue is requesting an unblock - it seems he's willing to communicate with other editors now. Since you blocked him, I defer to your judgement. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I just commented on the editor's talkpage, I think it would be unwise to unblock until there's actually a discussion, i.e. a response to another editor's comment. So far, there's been no response to my 4-hour old comment, although it could, obviously, just be the wrong time wherever Arataman 79 is. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I care about what you think? No. Signsolid (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that we're friends I'm just stopping by to say, "hello." Unless of course you were trying to be insulting when you refered to me as a "mutual friend." As an administrator it doesn't become you to take sides against an editor behind his back. Dwain (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I have interacted with, or about, you for some weeks... although I have just used that exact phrase regarding another editor. Tell me, are those socks you are wearing with the Jesus sandals? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, August 1st is "some weeks" away. Wow! Have a good one friend. Dwain (talk)

Thanks for trying o help. Nonetheless, Abd's "campaign", as you put it has come to him ignoring my attempts at being helpful and dissolved into his questioning my neutrality. I really can't cope with repeating myself to defend myself at the moment (too much real life stress to have online stress as well) so I'm leaving the project, albeit hopefully temporarily. Assuming this comes up while I'm "away", I hope you can point out why I'm not commenting. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can you help me out with more info about editing bots? i want to know how they work, thanks

ps: i think we need a special testing and construction area for new templates, tools and infoboxes.

cheers

Btzkillerv (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually hadn't looked to see what happened regarding this, figured it would take longer than that. Thank you for letting me know though, hopefully they will learn from the block and not resume their blanking. Although in the case they do resume, I will follow your instructions. I'm still a pretty new editor, and I always try and assume good faith. Sometimes though I just get the feeling that certain editors aren't here to build an encyclopedia. The whole always assume good faith is rather difficult at times. Have a good day, Landon1980 (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Weiss. It's been protected for a few months. It doesn't appear there was any edit war or active dispute. Do you suppose it could be dropped to semi? Cool Hand Luke 01:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a good time to lift protection of any of the articles in what I describe as the 'NSS Syndrome.' This one is the subject of a dispute that actually appears to be unresolved, concerning controversial material targeting Wikipedia specifically.--Janeyryan (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked your comments to CHL's talkpage, and perhaps you and him could discuss the best way forward? I would note that CHL is suggesting semi-protection rather than none. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Less. Perhaps the issue can be revisited once this Register furor dies down. --Janeyryan (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think semi-protection is more appropriate than full protection. By the way, I don't plan to edit the actual article for various reasons although I may comment on the talk page. Cla68 (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. While I technically have the bit to unprotect, but I'm not an uninterested party. I will be editing the article, so I don't think it's appropriate for me to change it. I don't plan to add the recent Reg story though, and I actually agree with Janeyryan that it should be excluded from this BLP. It's not urgent, so I'm happy with leaving it be for a few more weeks. It would be a different matter if NSS were still protected. A lot of news has affected that subject, but it's appropriately on semi. I'll raise it on the talk page next time before asking you. Cool Hand Luke 01:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened the discussion on the article talkpage, so that hopefully more opinions can be gathered. I (a little late) recall that the talkpage is also protected, so that may have to be lifted to allow full participation in the debate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I just wanted to wait to see if they might edit again. I was considering protecting BoogaLouie's page, but it slipped my mind momentarily. bibliomaniac15 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"01:22, 17 August 2008 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) (14,097 bytes) (→Copyright Infringement silly billy"

Was that aimed at me? While a minor personal attack, it's not very civil to make belittling comments towards me. I wouldn't do the same to you. I hope you have a great day. Regards, Dean.--Manboobies (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page is currently semi-protected, so, as my account is too new to edit semi-protected pages, I can't reply there :( Anyway, I've been editing for about a year as an IP, and just recently created an account. While I thank you for your concern about my userpage, I'll be fine :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i still haven't seen any compelling reason as to why it's appropriate for this blog to be included into the article and edit warred over its inclusion. the original source is allegedly a college newspaper that doesn't appear to have a website or any archives available, but the source currently is just a blog which claims to be a reposting from a school paper. as an encyclopedia, i don't see how this blog passes as a reliable source, warrants much discussion, or edit warring over its inclusion. there is no guarantee that this is a faithful and accurate reposting of the original on the blog. since content wise, it's a pointless source, which adds nothing to the article, and comes from a blog, i really don't see why this should still be included. could you please let me know if you think it should be included still? i am willing to listen to an outsider's opinion. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LHvU, I'm losing it. As Bart's mentoring admin, I have to let you know that I am about one more incident away from going back to WP:ANI and building a very long and detailed case for Bart Versieck's banning. I am tired of all the disruption he partakes in, the little things just keep adding and adding up and I feel that all our efforts to turn him into a constructive editor are not getting through and that I may have to lay out the entirety of his disruption to the community to show its entirety. I already asked him twice not to pipe World War II with "Second World War" when it serves no purpose. Maybe it's not that big of a deal, but you can only claim ignorance and then do the same thing again so many times. It's chronic with him. Say he understands, say he won't do something, then do it again and again and again because there are no consequences. Maybe you can explain to him the gravity of the situation, but one more anything, even so much as a tiny change to someone's talk page comments, and this is going to the community and a case will be made to ban. I have lost all patience with this. Cheers, CP 23:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very strange. Extremely sexy (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sage and sound advice LHvU. That does seem to be the better way. I still hold a bit of hope that this expression of frustration will be my last though... thank you. Cheers, CP 16:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I am always terrible at choosing the right barnstar, but your sage adminship and infinite patience deserve recognition! Cheers, CP 16:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: just keep up the good work. Extremely sexy (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the comments on Bart's talk page, I feel that he has abandoned the notion that he should not be editing other's comments for any reason. As stated above, I have prepared a report on his behavior since the 3 month block was lifted and I am coming here to ask you, as his mentor, where you would like/feel is most appropriate to post it. It does not, as per your suggestion, recommend any particular course of action, if that helps in your decision-making. Cheers, CP 01:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on my own talkpage, I only reverted something. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I had missed this in all the other stuff that has been happening on this page. I will look at it drekly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am allowed to revert stuff on talkpages, especially of articles. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey LHvU - I just had a big Graduate Student Assembly event to run yesterday, along with my usual homework load, and Thursdays are my incredibly busy days, so I've just gotten back to editing now. Thank you for your concern. I am, however, still looking for your advice on where to post my report. Cheers, CP 01:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey LHvu, here is the report. I will go notify everyone that I promised to in the report immediately. Cheers, CP 17:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not to be found. Extremely sexy (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why her being of Norwegian ancestry is going to be "the cause of spontaneous combustion among a lot of teenage contributors" more than if she was of any other ancestry? Thanks.--Whatever She Sings, We Bring (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i took your advice and attempted to get a 3O over whether http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/02/020402.php is a reliable source, but it did not work out. no one responded because it was involving more than 2 editors. an RfC would be the next move up the bureaucratic procedure list, but that seems like a totally unnecessary waste of time and effort just for someone to step in and remove the link because it's a blog and blogs are not reliable sources. the blog adds nothing substantial to the article and it's a blog to begin with. the reason i posted it to an ANI is because i knew there were 3 editors involved in the article who were going to revert my sane attempts to remove the blog, and i figured if one admin just stepped in and brought some sanity to the situation and said "no blogs in encyclopedias" the situation would be resolved. well, an admin did do that, and the tendentious editors did their job and reverted it. can you please just state your opinion on the article? whether you are for the blog's inclusion or against it, i don't want to go through an RfC for something so petty and unnecessary. there is currently an rfc on an important matter in the article and it's been almost 25 days with no response from a single outside editor. Theserialcomma (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh, and just to give a little background on what i meant when i said there were 3 editors who will revert any sane attempts to fix the article, there was a gawker article (not a reliable source) last week specifically about the censorship on the Tucker Max article http://gawker.com/5037685/strange#viewcomments Theserialcomma (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amusing edit summaries in both those edits. :D This must be my lucky week for spotting hilarity in the summaries. :) Acalamari 23:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Praise from "battered squid (singular)" is praise indeed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i work on adding content to page and others are vandalizing the page and why i get blocked??Recbon (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recbon has already revandalized the merged Dragon Ball GT article and the Dragon Ball talk page again. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As the IP admitted to be the blocked sockpuppeteer, User:I'm On Base, why was the IP only blocked for 31 hours? -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks! -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old friend has returned. A 6 month block would be appropriate here. Utan Vax (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! :-) Utan Vax (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to Abtract, etc. archive)

(moved to Freemasonry archive)

Your email, that is. I have a feeling there may be a technical problem with the email interface, so I've sent you an email direct so you have my addy. Risker (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i change my ip address which i can do when ever i feel like and now im not blocked any more and now i can edit pages so blocking me wont work. i reset it again and i wont stop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.156.161 (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your entry in this WR thread:

• "Stanley Accrington": yes, a reference to the football club, but I also had the songist Stanley Accrington in mind, as he first came up with the name.
• "Chumbly": a hastily spelt Doctor Who reference.
• "Skinheed": no, not Red Dwarf, but a very early Viz character from back when it was an amateur publication.
• "Fordite": also known as Detroit agate.

Right, I'm done. Cheers, 212.32.97.202 (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less - just read your bit on WR, you might be wrong about inferring age from the Accrington Stanley reference - I don't remember the team, but in the mid eighties there was a popular advert over here for milk - see you tube. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but in the 80's there was an assumption that the adult audience would "get" the AS reference - and those who were recently adults at that time are in their forties now. I also recall the Viz character, when it was much more anarcho than humorous, which again dates it to someone my age... Cheers, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your age? I'm only 38. --212.32.81.27 (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know if you're Frostie Jack - you might be George, for all I know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I would hope the CheckUsers aren't being so free with the info they have. But I would also hope that they, or their associates, aren't arranging to have pages vandalised just to catch me out. That would be bad form. 212.32.115.83 (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have found another User:Eurovisionman sock. I saw that you were involved before. Here's my report: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Onceloose. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thank you very much for your help with User:Mamasaidnakuout and I will keep an eye out for an influx of IP accounts on the articles. Aspects (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that did not take long. Looks like User:72.211.200.165 is User:Mamasaidnakuout's sock puppet with these two edits, [10] and [11]. Aspects (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for blocking Royce Mathew's IP. Though I still wonder how long he's blocked, so I can brace myself should there be another attack ;) what you did was solely kind and I really appreciated. Thank you!

Ah, and here's a barnstar for your work :)

BlackPearl14 would like to give LessHeard vanU the following barnstar for helping her with preventing personal attacks :)

Thanks! BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 21:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great ;) Ah, I learned a new word! Would it be possible to protect the IP's talk page, as well as all my pages? He's been vandalising mine a lot. If this persists, should I apply for semi-protection on the Pirates of the Caribbean articles? BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, thank you ;) BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 21:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally when people do this I click on the link and write something funny. Unfortunately I can't this time because the title excludes me from participating, as it does you. So I'll have to resssssssiiiist! But I did want to say that I loved your edit summary for this one :-) Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you seriously only block the user for 15 mintues?! Like that is going to do any good. Ctjf83Talk 22:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I meant it to be for 15 minutes and 30 seconds"...is that suppose to be some smartass comment or what? If so, it is not appreciated or funny. 15 minutes and 30 seconds is a ridiculously short block and won't solve anything. I shouldn't have to be harassed by a new user, who is complaining because he isn't getting his way, on his own comments being removed, because he no longer likes them. I told him several times to stop, and he continued. In the future, I won't come back to you if he continues, I will go to an admin who will block for a appropriate amount of time.Ctjf83Talk 23:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can solve the problem, but you are not going to like it! Remove his comments from your talk page. Problem solved. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, block me for what, not pleasing a user, by giving him his way...ya, ok. Ctjf83Talk 23:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Theresa, I'm not going to delete comments, because some user doesn't want it shown that he is ridiculous in his comments. Ctjf83Talk 00:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 00:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking this one. The Talk:Sarah Palin page is under seige from spammers at the moment and we need to get things under control. Wellspring (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool.LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind taking another look? Seems to be supported to extend your protection a teeny bit. rootology (C)(T) 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know you. Thank you for rvv to my user page. Happy fighting! Oda Mari (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for you to be SP'd for the moment. I hope you don't mind, I just can't follow the debate above. JASpencer (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it myself. With "Fun" comes "responsibility"... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just put a 15-minute range block on that particular vandal. (I don't like blocking 0/16 ranges for longer than a few minutes.) Wash, rinse, repeat as necessary. Thank you for watching over the Palin article: it's high-profile and important stuff. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I'm sprotecting all my various pages in the meantime... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your facing flak from dastardly IP editors after semiprotecting the Sarah Palin article. If it gets hot in that helmet, feel free to don one of these. And keep your head down, it's valuable around here! Noroton (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it wasn't chicken. (And don't mind the turkeys or the silly gooses, you've got the eagles on your side, but if the vultures -- stop me before I allude again!) -- Noroton (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(moved to archive)

LHvU, for your note to me, and for your handling of the issue in general. Very thorough, well explained, and respectful to all parties. Much appreciated. Cheers, JNW (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added my listing - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=235529519 Corvus cornix_talk 05:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it hasn't been resolved, just deleted from AIV with no action. Corvus cornix_talk 17:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copy to Freemasonry archive)

Look: [12] BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 19:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! My IP was recorded instead of my account ;) BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 19:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I'm sure you already know the message (it has been posted on "Admin help" on my talk page and on the sockpuppet reports) - I've asked him not to post any more comments on my page, but I doubt he'll listen. Just thought I should tell you. BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 19:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copy to Freemasonry archive)

I posted my complaint against the IP for Mr. Mathew on the AIV page, but someone removed it (I accidentally made it three comments instead of one - saved it thrice, as can be seen)... could you help me with retrieving it from the history when appropriate? I can't stand being harassed by this guy anymore...and he gets mad when I tell him what he's doing. Thank you ;) BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 01:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(move to archive)

This might seem strange, but does anyone ever say something like "I read your name as LessVan HeardU?" There is probably a reference I'm missing (or I'm dyslexic), but that's how my brain processes your name audibly. Here's hoping that I'm not the only person. Protonk (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(move to Abtract, etc. archive)

Thank you for your participation in WP:ANI#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks . In my view, there was only one constructive outcome; and it flows from something Taemyr wrote: "Something definitely needs to be done about Tenmei's style of discussion if he is to be a constructive participant in this project." Taemyr's suggested mentorship option seems promising. In that context, I construe the following as an initial topic for discussion with a mentor. You were addressing Caspian blue when you wrote:

• If you don't appreciate TK commenting, I suggest you post your next complaint to WP:Admin Noticeboard not involving Theresa Knott (or LessHeard vanU, for that matter). I certainly won't miss you. LessHeard vanU 15:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC) ....[reply]

What I don't understand is why I felt so extraordinarily reassured and relieved by your oblique defense of Theresa Knott in circumstances I still can't quite grasp.

Thank you for that terse edit in what Guy described as a "whole festival of Stupid" .... I will try to keep your wry sense of humour in mind as I continue to figure out how to improve the effectiveness of my Wikipedia contributions. --Tenmei (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 47 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man 19:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure why you did this: [13]. I was directed to the AN/I page on IRC. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't catch this when it was posted... It appeared to be a personal attack, given that the account has one edit, to the userpage, made a week ago. The appropriate place to express your concerns would be to the Foundation; they have the expertise and facility to take steps against any hacking, and some evidence of your claim would help them determine the appropriate response. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'm not certain how best to contact the foundation. I never received a reply when I tried before.

Meanwhile, user is now threatening to sue me (on what grounds I would not know). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: my complaint filed at meta was thrown out as a 'personal attack'. Nobody was interested in the evidence or even cared about the hacking, or the fact that the user deleted my complaint. You learn something new every day. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you contact the Foundation direct. Wikipedia Foundation#External_links lists the website, which should provide you with an email address or other means of communicating with them. It would be best if you can provide some evidence of your claims when contacting them, as your complaints have been dismissed as "personal attacks" in the absence of same and will likely not be considered with due regard without any. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I found this page with contact information. I will certainly contact the foundation directly now. The situation has escalated further today. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the foundation redirects us back to local, where we started, in a rather aggressive tone of voice. I.e., we have gone full circle without anyone taking responsibility. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 07:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, I suggest dropping the matter. If subsequent events prove you right, then you have a clear conscience - and more fool "the authorities" that were unable to process your concerns. If nothing happens, then you acted in good faith but appropriately did not pursue the concerns. In short, it is time to step away. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Thank you also for your gentle reminder. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there a pile of deleted contributions I can't see? I can't say that I was happy over my interaction with him, but I can't see anything in his undeleted contributions that approaches justification for a one-week block.Kww (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the concern; I would point toward the block log - blocked indef for behaviour toward other contributors, and lifted upon undertaking to improve. I consider that they are thus amply warned of the consequences of resuming the problematic attitude. As I said at ANI, lifting the sanction is fine just as long as the editor understands that they need to change their ways in interacting with people. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to say one way or the other about the block, but these two edits [14] [15] from this morning illustrate his unwillingness to listen to other editors. They're additions of completely irrelevant links, after it was explained to him why they shouldn't be included. justinfr (talk/contribs) 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missed the discussion at WP:AN, and the signature discussion. Sorry for the intrusion.Kww (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's block evading using an IP now - see Special:Contributions/212.159.64.14. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below, he is editing his own page via ip. Since the majority of the edits are to a page he would be permitted to edit under his name anyway - and none are disruptive - I see no reason for considering warning, blocking the ip or extending the account sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely right, I was just a little trigger, sorry. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response from ip =

I think you'll find it's my user talk pages I can edit, not my user page.--212.159.64.14 (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but only one edit was to your userpage - one other was to a subpage. Four(?) were to the talkpage. If you put up a reasonable request (as yourself) on your talkpage I am sure someone will help you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

I have checked, and no, I can't edit my user page. User:Andy Bjornovich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.64.14 (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a mistake on my part. Is there an edit you wish me to make on your behalf? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No there isn't, and the reason for that is because I know where I want to put them and it takes a while for me to position them right. However, could you watch my user and usertalk pages so that any edits I make to my user and talk pages via my IP address that get reverted, could you revert back and tell the reverting editor they have not been deleted, they have been moved. Messages to my talk page go to User:Andy Bjornovch/Other, and userboxen I nick via my user that are copied and pasted go to the User page. Okay?--212.159.64.14 (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, although I am just about to go offline for a while. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find it's AZPPB, not AB, and it may change if I remember any more pieces of it. I don't normally allow people into this page, but you and any other administrators involved in my thing with signature/block/conversations have permission. Please use it if you have a conversation about me!--79.73.71.54 (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much ;) It's just - behaviour like this from an adult is really unnerving, considering I'd like some good role models for myself (and I can now safely say you're one of them) ;) Thank you for all you've done, it really helped me a lot! BlackPearl14^talkies! 23:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for confirmation: I was born on <redacted> therefore I am a minor. I do hope this doesn't mean my school isn't involved, I wouldn't want anything on a record, as I'm aiming for university! ;) Thank you for your help. BlackPearl14^talkies! 23:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thanks for removing that, I didn't realize! And thank you for the advice on role models, I really appreciate it ;) [[User:BlackPearl14|<font color="#CC5555" >BlackPearl14</font>]][[User talk:BlackPearl14|^{<font color="#667722">talkies!</font>}]] (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would think that an article about a site of wit and laffs would have a guard with a sense of humor. I recently made the mistake of thinking, at Uncyclopedia, that I could improve the Lead, just a bit, and add a little whimsy. "GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR""....the Otter at the door said...and then a tag-team of terrible "tuffs" appeared out of nowhere. I was lucky to get away with my Good Faith Editors Badge intact. Nice to meet ya....and, "Bob's yur Uncle.--Buster7 (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem (although I may be wrong) that you believe that I should know you... If I do, I am sorry but I don't seem to have picked up the clues (and if I have interacted with you on some other page, sorry again but it seems to have slipped my mind). Yours, LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...I didn't mean to be so overly-friendly. Its a design flaw of mine. My reaching out to you was because of [[16]]

and the furor that followed what I still think was a mild, unprovocative sentance. You came into the picture much later but for basically the same reason for a completely different edit and editor, but, again, an over-the-top response by Otterathome [[17]]

Ive read alot of your entries and I appreciate where you are coming from----Protecting Wikipedia.....so.........basically it was just a handshake and a "Howdy-do"--Buster7 (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed the Otter reference - generally because that was a post and forget intervention (though it is amusing, when reviewing the link, that the editor managed to miss my point entirely). Being "overfriendly" is fine; it leads to me being confused, but that is common with so many things it is no reason to suggest toning down something that is of benefit. "Howdy-do, back to you!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(move to Abtract, etc. archive)

Dear Admn. I would like to what alerted you to block me. You blocked me when I made an edit to bring back a section that was removed in bad faith and a RFC was initiated by Ncmvocalist. As I understand also pointed by other editor Erachima such deletion by Ncmvocalist is against Wikipedia policy.

As I understand direct reverts automatically alert Admn. In this case your action is followed after an edit. During the same period I could see on you talk pages there were some intimate transactions going on between Ncmvocalist and you on a different topic. I want to make sure you were not requested to intervene and block me. Please clarify so that I can understand the situation better. Thanks. Naadapriya (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, first I had inadvertently placed above comment on your user page.Naadapriya (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist requested to block at 09:52, 1 September 2008 and bloking took place at 10:30, 1 September 2008 i.e just within 38 minutes. It was acknowledged that the comment I had placed to justify was not read. Given the complexity of situation I guess it would have required more than 38 minutes to make such big decision on blocking. My action before I was blocked was a normal edit to bring back a section that was deleted by Ncmvocalist in bad faith before initiating a RFC. All my other edits were to modify sections based some recent comments in RFC regarding quotes from RS.

I strongly consider my blocking is a result of unfortunate misleading information posted by Ncmvocalist. He has tried it several times in the past without success. In such failed attempts once I guess he himself got blocked. Somehow he succeeded this time. At this stage nothing I can do about my blocking. However, I would like to request Admns to make wikipedia allowed provision to bring back the section that Ncmvocalist has deleted before starting the RFC. It will bring back the article to a status at which Georgewilliamherbert wanted to edit protect for a while. Deleting valid NPOV section without discussion that too just before RFC is ignoring NPOV effort in good faith by many editors to include the section.

Section can be modified based on RFC conclusions. Naadapriya (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since coming out of the short block, he doesn't appear to have any intention of having the matter resolved, and shows little change in being disruptive agenda-driven account who will not make any constructive contributions. No matter how many times he's been told, or how many users have tried to explain it to him differently, he's continued to disrupt Wikipedia, using it as a battleground to harass those users who do not conform to his POV-pushing [18] [19] [20], whether it's through tendentious arguments [21] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ncmvocalist&diff=prev&oldid=236176207 and on some occasions with threats [22]. He's been warned [23] yet his response shows no change either [24]. Can you please reblock him? Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to demur on the block; while the edits are confined to talkspace the editor is exercising their right to WP:DIGYOUROWNHOLE (I cannot use the text of the source I am using because it is copyright? Please!). While it also appears to be poor faith, there are no ad hominem attacks that justify sanction. My view is that the discussion is over, nobody is convinced by this editors arguments, and that any further posts on the subject should be ignored. If Naadapriya edits the article again to his preferred version, then a block would be justified - as it would be if they keep posting (in the absence of continued responses) disruptively. I would comment, however, that I would not consider the possibility of contemplating perhaps raising a query if another sysop took a differing view and acted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Please note this edit - if he reverts it, I think a block would be justified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I have been monitoring both editors in recent weeks. More so Jamalar than Charmed36. They hate each other and wiki-stalk one another's edits, engaging in edit wars. You recently gave Charmed36 a warning for that insult against the IP in the edit summary. Well it turns out the IP is actually Jamalar (I think Charmed36 knew this but I only just put 2 and 2 together). Jamalar has been using that IP to evade a block. See this and Jamalars talk page.

Jamalar and Charmed36 are too very disruptive editors, a lot of their disruption is directed at one another. I don't know where we go from here, but I think they both need to be put on some sort of parole and topic bans. Jamalar should be banned in all honesty, she has been using multiple accounts and IP's for too long. — Realist² 19:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Charmed36's incivility is terrible no matter who it's directed at. I'm just letting you know that there was more to it than originally thought. Needless to say, they will both carry on as they have, either on these accounts or other accounts or IP's. — Realist² 20:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Charmed36 needs help. Well, he could have pretended to be nice for a few days until we stopped monitoring his actions. Oh well. — Realist² 14:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for allowing the lengthy Abtract/Collectoninan/Sesshomaru discussion to take place on your talk page; I'm sure you're getting lots of "You have new messages" notices, but I'm glad to see that we seem to be getting there.

Also, your archive box is cool. :) -- Natalya 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmmmmm. [25] -- Noroton (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say that the guy has no earring, but I have not been wearing mine for a week so I think I would comment that I do not own a shirt like that (and you will have to take my word for it...) Anyway, as I recall it, she was saying, "No, I will not pour you a beer - I said I was a Republican!"

The Katy Perry edit was not disruptive. I have been loyal to Wikipedia for years. Charmed36 (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed36, the fact that you think this isn't disruptive shows how long you have managed to get away with doing what you like. It is very incivil. — Realist² 19:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, LessHeard! This is BlackPearl14, by the way. My signature isn't working, and I've checked the coding, it should work! Any help is greatly appreciated ;) [[User:BlackPearl14|<font color="#CC5555" >BlackPearl14</font>]][[User talk:BlackPearl14|^{<font color="#667722">talkies!</font>}]] (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry, but it's a legal threat? Sent to Wikimedia? I've been told to take it to incidents, it's been seen in consensus as a real problem - another admin contacted me just now. As for my signature, could you help out? [[User:BlackPearl14|<font color="#CC5555" >BlackPearl14</font color>]][[User talk:BlackPearl14|^{<font color="#667722">talkies!</font>}]] (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Send to Mike Godwin (links on WP article page); he is the bloke for legal stuff. If there is anything you need to do, he (or Wikipedia Office or like) will let you know - but believe me, this is not the first or last time someone will try to use a younger member of the volunteer staff try to enforce their wishes. Just pass it on to one of the senior (Hi, Mike - I may be even older than you, and it don't bother me!) individuals at WP.

I am unable to sort your sig - but it may be that there is no space between the Userpage sig and the talkpage sig... if only I knew the coding for both the double square brackets and that for the space. Hope that helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help, LessHeard, I really appreciate it! [[User:BlackPearl14|<font color="#CC5555" >BlackPearl14</font>]][[User talk:BlackPearl14|^{<font color="#667722">talkies!</font>}]] (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. On User_talk:Rainbow1981, you recently implemented a short block due to image-related vandalism. However, this editor has recently uploaded copyvio images on commons. How can he be stopped? Can there be an indef block on him or at least image uploads? Thanks. Mspraveen (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers. I'll bear them while dealing with such editors. Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for blocking the vandals on Shaun Alexander. That was really getting old. I was also about to go to WP:RPP, then you protected it. :) Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 20:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sarah Palin wheel war arbitration case, on which you have commented, is now open.

• Evidence for the arbitrators may be submitted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Evidence. Evidence should be submitted within one week, if possible.
• Your contributions are also welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny ✉ 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello LessHeard vanU. On August 24 you blocked IP 68.195.3.185 for 6 months for disruptive genre edits/ignoring talk page consensus etc. That editor has returned with a different IP. They are now 68.195.25.27. They are easy to identify because they use the same repeat edit summary "action metal" for every single edit. I was hoping you could look into this new IP evading your 6 month block. Thank you. Peter Fleet (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the quick response. If I notice another new IP from that range repeating the same 'action' can I report them straight to you? If I try AiV I will likely get someone unfamiliar with the history who doesn't see the IP edits as disruptive. Peter Fleet (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't know about that previous IP template. Hopefully the person will just go away and I won't have to use it. Peter Fleet (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up on this conversation. Another IP (this time it was 64.131.207.24) appeared earlier this evening and, basically, repeated the edits of the IP you blocked. This time around there wasn't an 'action metal' edit summary. But the IP seemed to hit every single article that the other IP did, with the exact same edits. DNS search puts the two IPs in two different places - but both are in New York State. I hate to assume anything other than good faith. But the "regional coincidence" seems to lean towards block evasion. Another user rv'd every edit the new IP did. I don't see where it's worth anyone's time to do a formal sock case. Your Wikipedia experience is much greater than my own, I just wanted to bring the IP to your attention to hear your thoughts on the matter. Thanks for your time. Peter Fleet (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed per your note on my talk page. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So whenever he makes an edit I feel strongly against, I just let it happen? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]])☺ 10:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested in the discussion here. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this, it doesn't look like the IP has received ANY warnings. Can you explain the "blocked user 31 hrs, vandalism past final warning" summary? Am I going blind, or is my computer malfunctioning? IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 21:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copying this to all admins who applied or extended protection on the Sarah Palin article.

To date there's been plenty of evidence pointing to discussions and otherwise offering commentary on the admin actions taken, but there's been little covering the circumstances prior to admin actions, namely the edits that the admins concerned based protection on. Newyorkbrad has put a question to the parties on this basis, but it seems to be only non-parties that have noticed that so far, so I'm putting this question to those involved directly.

Rootology has made a start here, and GRBerry has started drafting in his userspace. Ye might like to assist them in their efforts, or add a section of your own. This evidence will be vital in assisting the Committee's understanding of not only what happened and when, but why it happened. --bainer (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I comment at the Sarah Palin Workshop?? Or would it be better to wait for admins to respond first? I would be surprised if the Repulican Party did not make sure that the Sarah Palin article passed the "sniff test" prior to her announced addition to the ticket. That maybe a "good" article to revert to. Other thoughts also...freedom, over-reaction, future effect in WikiWorld, etc,--Buster7 (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard vanU, a little while ago you blocked 74.138.170.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for various disruptive acts. Looks like since the block has expired, the anon editor has picked up right where they left off. Mind taking a look? Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 04:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I would appreciate your advice about recent edits to a wiki-entry I have put some work into, namely [West Bergholt]. I am involved with the Parish Council there and so do have an interest. I have recently noted some large edits to the page that are comprised of unashamed wholesale cut-and-paste of large sections from the village website. It may well be flattering that the prose on the website is deemed by somebody as worth repetition but am I right in thinking that editors ought to précis information and quote external references rather than repeat wholesale? I'm happy for you to reply here or on my page as you see fit or consider most convenient. DaveK@BTC (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime presumably you noticed Sess's edit to this talk page of a dab page I created? Abtract (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your instructions; I hope you will interpret them, in the future, more fairly than you have done so far. Abtract (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I notice that whilst you have unilaterally imposed the restrictions you have stated that they ... are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators". mmmm Abtract (talk)

LessHeard vanU, I can't accept this. Abtract and I have too many of the same pages on our watchlist, so, there is a big chance that we'll still be "editing the same pages". And now you're suggesting that I can't interact with Collectonian either. NO WAY. I'm sorry but I'll have to decline another contract. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

It seems that Bart Versieck has created a sockpuppet to evade his block:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Flemishboy

The edits of "Flemishboy" look and sound exactly like Versieck-speak.

Sad. What is so important about making MINOR fixes? As I mentioned before, OCD persons feel COMPELLED to do it; they have to do it. No amount of second or third chances will change that, it appears. Sadly.

Ryoung122 05:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you would be kind enough as to inform Coll that this and thisis not the way to treat newcomers ... this guy hasn't even been welcomed yet, may I welcome them? Thanks. Abtract (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no-one has welcomed this guy yet; I wonder, could you do it please? Also User:Hexhand appears never to have been welcomed yet he started editing in June; I wouldn't want them to think we are all going to bite them so maybe you could welcome them as well? If you don't want to, that's ok I will ask some-one else. Abtract (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to welcome someone, especially if they seem to have the hang of things, just because they have been missed previously. No welcome is not biting them. I really would just let these things slide. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these relatively newcomers have been bitten by Collectonian, may I welcome them? Abtract (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're still keeping an eye on Masonic ritual and symbolism, but I've been having a basically fruitless "discussion" with Lunarian - the talk page is getting full of quotes that apparently have no stated purpose except to waste time. none of the dialogu has anything to do with improving the article, despite the fact that I have directly asked on at least three occasions what Lunarian's point is, or what he's trying to say, and rather than an answer, there's snippy comments and more quotes. It's well into disruptive at this point, and I think AGF is right out the window. MSJapan (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I'm referring to this. Can we solve this problem before I or Abtract get blocked for "editing the same page as the other"? Please reply at User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive, or your talk page if preferred. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard vanU, Abtract reverted on a page I recently edited. Didn't you say this was against the contract? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinks "I wonder if he noticed that I reverted back to his version?". Abtract (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard vanU, may this edit be reverted? I'm only asking this because Abtract made edits to the page before. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted. Per WP:AGF I am not going to ask how you noticed it. Give me a while regarding the second comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked JHunterJ to look into it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The prohibition is against "interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia". I'm assuming no other intra-party accords have been reached about other restrictions or divisions of labor. Given that, I'd say thtqa this reversion, in which Abtract reverts an uninvolved user's edit to a version of Sesshomaru's, is clearly fine. Similarly, Sesshomaru could have reverted this edit (an anonymous user's addition to a page also touched by Abtract). On a topic not discussed in this section, Sesshomaru's addition of a dab project tag to create a Talk page for a disambiguation page created by Abtract is also 100% fine. Could the parties involved reserve the complaints for situations where they actually disagree with the contents of the resulting page, please? -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks J, I've done this as a result of your investigation. I'm willing to resolve the matter, but everyone keeps ignoring a primary concern of mine. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really do think you have taken a sledge-hammer to crack a nut here guys. Sess and I had all but ironed out our differences and come to an understanding on JHJ's special page; this was sadly undone when Sess misunderstood my friendly farewell note (possibly because he wanted to be seen to support Coll). Left to our own devices I am pretty sure we can co-exist on all pages with Sess taking a minute detailed approach and me being cavalier and missing stuff. If Sess is happy for the restrictions between us to be removed (and I sense that he is) then why not make life easy for all of us and do so? I make no similar comment about Collectonian. Abtract (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you and Sess are happy to edit without the restrictions, you are welcome to do so -- provided you agree with each other to avoid reporting the other to the admins, we will remain blissfully unaware of the activity. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think that answers my question. Much appreciated J. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the restrictions on Abtract and I are still in effect, correct? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The restrictions between Collectonian and Abtract are in effect, yes. The restrictions between Sesshomaru and Abtract are also still in effect, although possibly those two users might agree or have already agreed not to report any violations of those restrictions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per JHunterJ above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we be clear that neither of the three admins involved will punish Sess or me for "interaction violations" unless one of us reports the other? And Sess, are we clear that we have grown through our problems, understand our differing styles and will edit responsibly around each other (I suggest this should mean we do not revert each other at least for a few months)? If this is what's being said I am quite happy to go along with it. Abtract (talk) 05:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed - no sanctions regarding interactions between Abtract and Sesshomaru unless reported by an involved party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abtract, I'll be more than happy to answer your questions long as you reply to mine. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean what pages are on my watchlist, it isn't relevant since we will be operating without restrictions. Abtract (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually gonna believe that? Or are you still trying to find ways to ignore me? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do believe it; why would he lie to us? Abtract (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, forget it. Guess we'll never get our respective answers. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure I understand that but let's move on ... do you want to operate like adults with no restrictions on a "no reporting and no reverting" basis or not? Abtract (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abtract, what is the point in answering you if you won't respond to my query? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less... I know that you have mediated between MSJapan and JASpecer in the past... Perhaps you would help me out in my own dispute with JAS. It concerns another case of JAS jumping the gun as far as redirects go... to be specific: I have been attempting to deal with an article on yet another non-notable Masonic Grand Orient (Grand Orient of the United States of America). Based on the fact that, as soon as such an article is deleted at AfD, JAS will create a redirect to his Continental Freemasonry article, I attempted to skip the AfD step and suggested that we simply reach a consensus to redirect. It took some discussion, and a side debate or two... but all the editors working on the page finally agreed to do this. Almost immediately, however, JAS re-redirected the information into a sub-article on Continental Freemasonry in North America. I find this to be extremely bad faith, as this was not the consensus at the GOUSA article. More to the point, I have made it clear to JASpencer on several occasions that I was strongly oppose the creation of any "Continental Freemasonry in x" article. I think that such articles violate NPOV by only discussing one branch of Freemasonry without discussing the other. As I have told JAS on numerous occasions, I do support broader "Freemasonry in x" articles provided that they discuss both "Mainstream" and "Continental" branches of Freemasonry in any given region.

On a lesser note, more connected with MSJ's previous complaints about impropper redirects ... JASpencer recently pre-emptively redirected the names of two websites to the main Freemasonry article. I have to question this... one of the names, "masonicinfo.com", is the website of a noted masonic appologist (this website was recently the topic of discussion in the GOUSA article I mention above, and was deemed to be unreliable as it is self-published)... the other is "Freemasonrywatch.com", an anti-masonic rant website that has actually been banned on Wikipedia for spamming. I seriously doubt that anyone would actually search for either of these website names on Wikipedia... but if they did, is it really appropriate to redirect them to Freemasonry? I would think it more appropriate to have a "no article" result. Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, give me the name of the two redirects and I will delete them; if they have been considered unreliable and especially one a spamsite then they have no place in the encyclopedia (in this instance, a redirect may be considered as providing a legitimacy they would not otherwise have). Secondly, and the first matters mentioned, is that WP:Consensus over-rides WP:BOLD. I would suggest that the redirect be as per consensus. As far as redirecting to Continental Freemasonry articles, as the article(s) exist(s) then it appears to be the logical place for them. If there is any problem with the provenance of the "Continental Freemasonry in X" articles then it would be a question of arguing for a merge into the relevant existing Freemasonry articles that cover those areas; Simply, it would be more encyclopedic to have one article covering Freemasonry in an area, which has content relating to all kinds of disciplines. If that were the case, then all redirects would point to that umbrella article. I trust this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it helps, thanks. The "articles" that were redirected are: Freemasonrywatch.org and Masonicinfo.com. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a matter of record I agreed for the article to be merged/renamed to Continental Freemasonry in North America not to be redirected. It was then simply redirected. I assumed good faith and thought that this was an invitation to start the article up.

Didn't realise about spamsites policy, I'll have to read up on it. Do you have a link for the policy on this as I read WP:REDIRECT when MSJ tried to argue against redirects for deleted articles (and just re-read it now) but I didn't see anything about adding legitimacy to WP:BADSITES.

JASpencer (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPAM is the page, but the wording is ambiguous - however, it is clear that spam is not wanted (only legitimate sources referred to in the text are generally permitted) and having a spamsite as a searchable name defeats that. I shall delete the redirects. As regards the redirect, if it could be taken back to the consensus state then there is no further action needed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're deleting as an A7? I thought speedy's were narrowly defined. You live and learn. JASpencer (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the masonicinfo.com deletion was brought up on Blueboar's user page. I know it's a novel approach but I think that you should be told if I talk about you on other people's user pages. JASpencer (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both items were WP:SPAM in my opinion; an item does not have to be blacklisted to be spam. The sites are non-notable and do not otherwise meet WP criteria by themselves. Moreover, anyone searching WP under those search parameters and being directed to Freemasonry would possibly be given the incorrect impression that those terms were legitimate subjects in that regard. Therefore I deleted as WP:CSD#A7, noting - since they were redirects - that they were SPAM per the target article. If you want to argue the technicalities, then take it to WP:DRV.

Also, and although it is very likely my poor communication skills rather than intent, there is a possibility that the tone of your last couple of remarks might be interpreted as not conveying an appreciation of good faith. I would suggest that it might be unfortunate if other readers also made the same mistake when interpreting those comments, so it may be helpful if you could review your language choices before pressing "Save page". LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less, would you please explain a bit more about why you think masonicinfo.com does not pass WP:SPAM, and what that means? We cite to it a fair amount in all the various Freemasonry articles, and it would be a real headache to find new citations. I can understand limiting it as being a self-published site (and thus unreliable in many situations), but am not clear on WP:SPAM. Blueboar (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is the circumstances of the redirect rather than a general evocation of WP:SPAM, and the fact that it is a non-notable subject of itself being redirected to a clearly notable article; the only analogy I can quickly think up would be placing a link to the Anti Nazi League website (without context) on every article relating to historical Fascism - no matter that in this case it is a notable organisation, it would still be spamming if it was used out of correct context. However, it would be appropriate to link to the website if that is the source of information about the historical article subject. In this way a website can both be considered spam and a legitimate source.

The difference in this case is that the websites are non-notable (there being no likely independent sources for verification purposes) and being used in such a way to possibly generate interest in themselves by their relationship to the article i.e. self advertising. To continue to use them as sources elsewhere in an appropriate context, however, is fine since the relationship is properly defined.

I hope this helps. It may be a good time to remind people that Admins are editors who are trusted to use certain tools on the basis that their judgement is considered reasonable but not necessarily perfect/correct and based in good faith; sometimes it may be that a situation may not be resolved in exact accordance with a policy page (or six), but with a consideration of the principles held within those pages. This is an aspect of what I did here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Less, that clears it up for me at least. Blueboar (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously not as sharp as Blueboar but I still don't understand. You know that I created these redirects, you know (or I hope you do) that I'm not connected to either sites. What have I missed? I ask this in all good faith, but how could this be the websites getting publicity for themselves? JASpencer (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to make clear I had never considered the possibility of connecting you to the sites. I'm not sure how much more I can explain my decision - it is as inappropriate to redirect titles that belong to masonic critique websites to Freemasonry as it would be to redirect anti-Semite site names to Jewish articles, in that it potentially provides a spurious legitimacy that such an organisation might exploit (or people may believe it reflects). A redirect to Anti Masonic groups or Masonic conspiracies might be legitimate, providing those names are present in the content and there are links, but not the main Masonic articles. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get it now. Sorry for being slow. That makes sense on freemasonrywatch which is anti-masonic. However masonicinfo is pro-Masonic, very much so. It also is not on the spam list and is used quite commonly as a site in Wikipedia and could be used as a legitimate search. Would it be OK if I recreate masonicinfo.com and masonicinfo as redirects to Freemasonry? JASpencer (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should think that MSJapan and Blueboar are better judges for that, as they have already had some experience of the site. They may have some other suggestion as to a more appropriate target. I am assuming that they have this page watched, but I will request their thoughts if there is no response within 24 hours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my take on the situation. My primary concern was with redirecting masonicinfo.com to the main Freemasonry article. That the redirect simply did not make sense. To my mind, the primary reason to redirect something is to aid users in finding the information they are searching for. Someone who enters "masonicinfo.com" as a search term on Wikipedia is not looking for general information on Freemasonry... he or she is looking for information on a specific website (or for information about its author/owner, Ed King). If we had an article for Ed King, I could understand redirecting the name of his website to that article (or vise-versa); if we had an umbrella article on "Masonic websites", I could see redirecting to that... but I can not understand the logic of redirecting to Freemasonry.

My second concern is that this website is currently being re-evaluated as a source. Until recently, masonicinfo.com has been considered perfectly reliable by the members of the Freemasonry Project. It is a well regarded website that is often referred to and cited in various masonic blogs and forums. As such it has been used as a citation on many of the Freemasonry related articles. However, it has recently been questioned because it is the work of one man... and as such can be considered a personal self-published source. This has called all of these citations into question. Obviously this is of some concern to the members of the Freemasonry Project. The reason why I called this to your attention was that I found JASpencer's redirect in the midst of this re-evaluation to be inappropriate (and, quite frankly, a little suspicious).

Finally, there is your interpretation of how WP:SPAM fits in. If masonicinfo.com isn't reliable, creating a redirect for it does give it legitimacy that it probably should not have. If it is reliable, then there is the possibility that someone may wish to create an article about it. In either case, redirecting was inappropriate. Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so pending clarification of how reliable the site is as a source the redirect should stay deleted - if there is consensus to keep the source then a more appropriate target can be found (the article which most references the source?). If the source is found to be unreliable, then whether there should be any redirect from that site name can then be considered. Is this okay? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonably extensive site that is linked to by many grand lodges not for scholarship or elegance but because it says what the grand lodge officials think but can not say. It may or may not meet notability, but that's not an issue for a redirect. And as far as it not being a search term, I'd disagree, and I would say that the burden of proof should not be on the redirect creator. JASpencer (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there seems to be some debate on whether it is a single persons site (no matter if there are quotes from other individuals, it may still not be under any independent editorial review) but the main point is that any redirected name needs to target that article which is most germane; that is the responsibility of the creator, I suggest, and Freemasonry does not appear to be that article. I would also comment that it is nearly impossible to prove an absence, so it is not feasible to find evidence it is not a search criteria. As I argued previously, redirects are cheap and it is fine to use anything that may reasonably be a search parameter but it must point toward that article which is most relevant. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Masonicinfo is for information about Freemasonry. Unless there is an article on pro-Freemasonry apologetics there's no more suitable site for this redirect. JASpencer (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the site is non-notable so its own purpose is not sufficient for it to be redirected to the Freemasonry article. Secondly, it is not commented on or used as a reference in that article. It should be redirected to that article which most uses its content as a source - this will be Masonic related with a link to the main article. Analogy time...; the pretend site scottishterriers.com should point to the site which most uses it as a reference (such as Scottish Terriers) but not the Annoying rat featured canines main article - even if the site is run by an apologist for small ratty temperamentally unstable doggies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Checkuser confirmed that Flemishboy was Bart Versieck:

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

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

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

He is again breaking the agreement by editing a page he knows I edit, and showing that he is again continuing to stalk my contribs.[26] Yes, it is a "good" edit, but it still goes against the agreement to stop bothering me. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)