User talk:LessHeard vanU

good show

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vandal

Do you remember me and my favorite vandal ? Now he has started new actions. Deleting picture from article Chetniks because picture is "copyrighted" and puting tag copyrighted on picture. This is link for picture on internet [1]. If you agree that copyright of picture is OK can you please create protection against new user and user without name for this picture ?? --Rjecina 17:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks

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

Re: Userpage edits

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

User:Jfol2258

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

re James Beckford vandalism

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

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

69.48.16.210

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

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

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

Haredim and Zionism

Hi LessHeard. I've protected this page for three days to stop the edit warring (or at least slow it down). I'm not sure why you rolled back this edit ([2]) using your rollback tool and then blocked the user for an hour, as his edit didn't seem like vandalism - he just seems to be on the minority in a rather lame edit war. It's usually best if you don't block editors you are in content disagreement with (it can come across as a conflict of interest). Neil ム 14:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

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

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

Fahrenheit451

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

??

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

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

Hilarious!

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

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

"I strongly suspect you are a Scientologist"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the response to Anon

Thanks for this: [3] I missed the comment from this editor, and appreciate your help! Hiberniantears 21:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyvios

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

Maria rivas

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

Lennon's Tomes

Hey, I think we need an admin to express some policy in John Lennon, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Arcayne is being impossible with John Lennon and May Pang pages.Sixstring1965 20:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sixstring1965File:Applecorps.jpg^{The Beatles Wikiproject}

Um.... okay? (Yeah, alright, I'll pop over.) LessHeard vanU 20:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A thankless job, being an admin.... so, while you're there - can you point to a better place to get help with understanding free images? Tvoz |talk 20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess the help pages are the place to start. My (somewhat shaky) understanding is that by linking to the addy of the pic you get the details of the license, if it says GDFL (or GDFL, I never can remember the middle sequence) or Public Domain then it is free. It is likely that there will be a help page link around the licensing bit for folk like thee and me. I hope this helps.

Being an admin is okay, the rewards are not what I expected - but then I misread porcupines for concubines so I am to blame, I guess! LessHeard vanU 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

hahahahahahahaha......serves you right for reading whilst drunk. Tvoz |talk 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Damn, you made me noseboot Mt. Dew! LOL!

I've encountered a problem with the provenance of an image SixString uploaded, presumably under Creative Commons. Creative Commons. Most creative Commons photos are specially licensed through Everystockphoto.com or within Wikipedia. A brief Google image search indicates that the image SixString uploaded as Creative Commons is actually a firmly copyrighted image, as seen here and here - the latter clearly identifying the image as being an AP file photo. One of the reasons Wikipedia got all crazy about images is that news services like AP and Reuters threatened legal action, citing Tasini concerns of image re-use without compensation.

This is the second time that SixString has 'fudged' a licensing to shove an image through. This is precisely the sort of fraudulent behavior which gets folks banned from editing Wikipedia. Not seeking citations is one thing - manufacturing then is quite another. This is a serious issue, and if we cannot trust the imagery uploaded to to be licensed honestly and scrupulously, the entire article is in jeopardy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I really am not so hot on the image/licensing stuff, so I recommend you take this to WP:ANI or whatever the venue recommended at the image help page - with all the diffs/links per above. It is unlikely the article is in trouble, but whoever uploaded and/or tagged the image may be. LessHeard vanU 12:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

South Crofty

Thanks for the message. DuncanHill 21:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Response

I understand what you're saying and agree that it would make the article read better. My only concern is that it presents only one side of the story to the reader and, if they choose to go no further, they only get half of the information. Could we add a sentence at the end stating something to the effect "This 10Q filing has recently been the subject of controversy" and then hope readers look further? On another subject, I think I might do a total overhaul of the Legal Allegations section when I have the time. It looks sort of beat up, and there was another lawsuit brought against them just yesterday. Plus, some of the information I can't find listed in any of the sources. Jean314 11:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we keep the general info bland (i.e. not mention their rating in Forbes etc.) initially and then mention the companies strong points and its controversies later on in the article? Also, when would you want to work on this and who is responsible for what?Jean314 18:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. Edison 16:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Modelun88

Well, does he now fall under being disruptive, he's posted on probably 25 user's talk pages, telling them about it, (would that be canvassing? not sure) and he's probably still going. Well I've filed a RPP report along with AIV Yamakiri 00:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I will look at their contrib history again... LessHeard vanU 01:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you're right, that's what made me disappear last time... Now my usertalk edit count has spiked probably to half! How will I manage that! I've watched RfA's fail just because of the talk count! Should I disappear again? Yamakiri 01:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Should you? It is only the internet, and only a bit of that. The best thing is to do what makes you happy, and avoid what gives you stress. If you find what you think is a vandal then report it and move on - let other folk like me deal with it. In truth, no I don't think you should disappear (again? do I know you previously?) but maybe find an area where your enthusiasm is not soured as quickly. I'm off to bed now, but if I can help just ask... LessHeard vanU 01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:204.52.215.6's warning

Hi LessHeard vanU, I'm just dropping you a note RE: the warning I left to User:204.52.215.6. The warning was for editing tests to Feminism [4], but due to there being a current final vandalism warning there I used an IM-tempalte, which was probably the wrong option. I think you made a good call by not blocking the IP - I concur that their edits since those to Feminism seem to be in good faith. Apologies if I made a mess--Cailil ^talk 21:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for supporting my recent successful RfA despite never having heard of my nominators ;) . I've been easing into things and haven't spoilt anything yet. See you around. Cheers! -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites opened

Hello, LessHeard vanU. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 21:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Axel8/Demyx9

Just so you know, the user I reported to AIV is also in "disputes" on the pages Scooch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Durmstrang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I don't really class it as a dispute because:

1. He's replacing correct verified information with incorrect original research (which I think falls under sneaky vandalism).
2. There's a commented warning that says that replacing the verified information will be classed as vandalism.

If he had a legitimate leg to stand on, sure, I'd realise it as a dispute and go to WP:3O. But when it's V'ed material against OR, it's hardly a content dispute. Will ^(talk)

It was a verbatim copy of the 2007 rules - I'd never thought about it going down to one point because that's just a failsafe - I mean, how many football qualifying groups have been settled by drawing lots? Will ^(talk) 21:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have both Scooch and FTFFY on my watchlist, so it'll be easy to spot. Will ^(talk) 22:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit tied up yesterday (damn my temper with obstinate people! lol). He did tell me that he and Axel were twins. As to the physiological nature of their twinship, I confess that we never really discussed the matter. I would suggest that you recommend (and I will do so as well) that they they perhaps use Wikipedia as an opportunity to pursue specifically different interests. This allows then to avoid the possibility of not only sock- and meat-puppetry, but of wiki-canvassing, as well. I do know that that Demyx reads to me as quite young - his heart seems in the right place, and he seems to take criticism appropriately. If this is a case of sock-puppetry, I've been suckered.

I am not sure how WP is set up to deal with this sort of situation, but I imagine that it might be akin to the same way we approach married couples. If they vandalize, we warn them and then block them when they do not relent. If we notice complimentary edits in the same articles, we check their IPs. If they match, I am not sure what happens after that; do we give them an opportunity to prove they aren't the same person, and just use the same comp? Do we insist that they pursue different articles? I haven't the foggiest - I am not an admin. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Editor on blanking spree on multiple pages

Can someone look into this? User:Gnanapiti is blanking whole bunch of paragraphs, sections, links claiming WP:OR, WP:NOT and WP:SOAPBOX

here and here in Sethusamudram page and

here and here in M. Karunanidhi page

here and here and here in Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham page Anwar 21:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA--personal note

I've done the group "thanks" for my successful RfA, but I wanted to just take a minute to thank you personally and particularly for your again reminding me not to reign in my word count for the sake of succinctness. That was very kind of you and most welcome during a stressful procedure. :) I appreciate it. --Moonriddengirl 01:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you clear it up.

2 things, my name is Axel8 noat Alex or Ajax it's from Kingdom Hearts 2 and is a really good game and you should play it.

The other is we are confused, tell me if we got this right:

• Anything you edit you have to site at the bottom of the page.

• We can both edit but we have to not edit at the same time or the same pages

• We aren't allowed to back eachother up but we don't have to diasgrre (really didn't get this one.)Basically we can't say anything cos were'll always agree because we are twins, well not always because he gets well loads of things more wrong than me.

We share one computer so our Ip thingy will be the same so can't we do it so that in like voting things we are counted as one although this is a bit notfair as we rr difrent people just twins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel8 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

OMG we always get the same marks and you even got that question wrong about Gravity the other day.

Also less heard van u we don't really want to have to share Ips but we will if it stops us from being blocked. As your an admin can you like merge our Ips together as we have the same compute and like tgen all our votes would be 1 and then that wouldn't affect it wold it.

Also what do you mean by our editing patern is the same, if it means we agree we don't always because just last week I said that Durmstrang was in Russia but he said Bulgaria so we don't always. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demyx9 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You said we should edit diferent ones or we could edit the same and be blocked and when you said something like we're pupets do you mean because we respect Arcayne because if so isn't that an insult to us calling us sheep because the thing is last week when me and Demyx had to share acounts because Kate would only create one for us for free but said she'd charge for the second 1 but then we found out how I could get an account, anyway Arcayne helped us understand the rules and that's why we respect his knowledge of wiki because he's just looking out for us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel8 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Less, they sent me a message about this problem. Could you send me a note explaining what the problem is as you see it? I know you're busy, but I think it might be best to nip this problem in the bud if its possible. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on them, but I think they are finding their wiki-legs now that people aren't accusing them of being socks. Hoprefully, they will keep me posted if they run into trouble. I've watchlisted both of their pages and told them to holler if they get in over their head. I know you are busy, so thanks for taking hte time. Stay frosty. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for your Review

My apologies for not updating sooner, but I've been busy with school recently. I've done a preliminary draft of an update for the USANA artcle dealing specifically with the lawsuits being filed agains them. I would like for you to review it, if possible, and suggest changes to ensure NPOV. I'll paste it below Jean314 13:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal Troubles (Probably not the best title)

One day after the release of the Barry Minkow report, shares of the company's stock declined by $8.92, or 15%.. Accusations leveled against Usana by Barry Minkow and the FDI, were listed as contributory factors in the decline of the stock price and have subsequently led to several lawsuits being filled against the vitamin distributor.

On April 4, 2007 Guerin Senter and two other USANA shareholders filed a class-action lawsuit against USANA Health Sciences, Myron W. Wentz, David A. Wentz and Gilbert A. Fuller. The suit alleges that USANA presented materially false and misleading statements about the company’s financial situation and business practices. Included in the allegations were that USANA’s business model was unsustainable and amounted to a pyramid scheme. The suit also cited several findings from the report released by Barry Minkow.

USANA has also been named the defendant in a proposed class-action lawsuit brought against them by some of the company’s distributors. On June 21st the Associate Press reported that the lawsuit was being filed in the state court of California, which has tough multilevel marketing laws. This lawsuit seeks to ban USANA from doing further business in the state, which is one of USANA’s largest markets. The lawsuit alleges that USANA failed to disclose “material adverse facts” to those recruited to sell the companies products. The lawsuit seeks damages for “downline” distributors who purchased products which they claim they were unable to sell due to the inflated prices. The lead plaintiff in the case, Christopher Crane, is claiming damages of $500, but additional plaintiffs will see that number rise.

My RfA

Hi, I answered as well as I could for now. See my posting at this diff for more information [5]. Bearian 02:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My final answer is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bearian#Questions_for_the_candidate. Bearian 15:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I just want to thank you (a bit late) for supporting my RfA, which passed 63 to 1. Thanks again, especially for changing your vote, and I hope to do my best. Bearian 01:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

AXEL8 + DEMYX9 VS sceptre

Remember our dear little friend sceptre who reported us for no reason. Well now he's editing this article and now its really negative. So what did we do, scanned the rule book and found lost of rules. We went onto the talkpage of the article to discuss how we think it could have a more neutral point of view, but apart from this guy and us no-one's gone near the article since may or June.

So we took it to his talk page and e started talking all technical, but this time we understood it more, he told us that this is how it was and if we touch it "It will be considered VANDALISM a word he shouts far too often.

So we thought we'll edit slightly a bit each day just so that it's lees biased and he won't notice but he did and changed it back.

He says this group came 23rd out of 24, when we point out that 42 competed he says, any attempt to change this will be considered VANDALISM you have been warned.

Also he cites a webstie that concerns the tie break rules for 10th place and first place but nothing about any others.

Now he says that all of Malta only voted for the United Kingdom as a protest. The website he sites is just one mans opinion.

Please guide us in what to do next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel8 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not identifying the changes as vandalism (if I would I'd press the "Rollback (vandal)" button. Will ^(talk) 21:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Btw, thanks for the barnstar. It was quite unexpected. Sometimes, I fly off the handle. It is pretty awesome to get commended for keeping my cool, and positive reinforcement. Now, if I could only use barnstars as pick-ups to get laid more often, Wikipedia would be the best thing evar. lol - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Btw, what that craziness with the twins and the unruly fellow cleared up? I fropped a message on his Talk page, but he hasn't got back to me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the twins working vandalism? Jeez, that's could be the making of a wiki legend right there...brrrr. :)

About bots, I use a G5, and most bots are written for the pc, so no go. Plus, I don't trust bots to run automated most automated tasks. I think if you are going to edit, do it by hand, and lend the human touch; we have enough users, so most of the crap will get caught and purged by others, leaving the truly thorny issues for more weighty consideration. then, that's just my thought. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, Axel8's reverted to the "22nd" version despite being warned not to umpteen times. Will ^(talk) 16:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Axis101

These sort of accounts are common, but I still like to give the user the benefit of the doubt by assuming good faith. Although I don't have high expectations, I do hope the user will amend his/her ways. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Responded on my talk

You missed a diff; A Kiwi clearly asked her to put it back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

172.129.240.83

FYI: 172.129.240.83 (talk · contribs) has made an request to have the duration of their block reduced. Your call. Kuru ^talk 23:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God

We did everything by the book we went onto the discussion page but only he answered us. So we talked to him he seemed to accept it and went quiet for a bit. We changed it and acctually learnt how to site a source and we did and we made it sound more neutral instead of his negative view on it and we only put facts. We said 42 he said 24 you ask anyone howmany competed they will say 42.

We even met halfway and agreed to say tied with france which is true and he says they lost to france.

He also has some funny theory that malta fixed the 12 points just because someone said in their opinion that Malta might have voted in protest. Just because he's an older editor and 2 weeks ago we didn't really understand doesn't mean he's right. We can't keep on badgering Arcayne because that is unfair on him.

Sceptre is just a nasty person who hates us because we're new and make him look 5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axel8 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool down the personal attacks. Also:

1. Any changes to the position to "22nd" are being counted as vandalism as the official result is twenty-third.
2. That "someone" is the head of the jury for Malta, not some random homeless person. Will ^(talk) 19:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Responding to him (too much mess if it's over three, four, or five seperate user talks). Will ^(talk) 20:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

re User:76.199.87.51 report to AIV

Sorry guy - in my haste, sometimes I get tilde-challenged. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

re: User:122.163.102.174 report to AIV

Thank your for your prompt attention to my report and reply on my user talk page.

You wrote there today that "You have not warned the ip, or even written to them on their talkpage. They had also 'only' reverted twice, thus not violating 3RR. You also did not sign your report at AIV. Please follow all procedures before reporting 'vandalism' in future. Thank you."

I thought I left the four tildes at the end when I copied the example abuse report, and that this would constitute signing. Also, I thought my username DID show up when I looked at the (very briefly appearing) abuse report on the screen after I entered it. As for warning the IP, how can I when they use a differen IP (but all beginning with 122.163) every time? An extensive history of previous abuse from this IP is available on my user talk page. I will continue reverting the Logical connective article until the required number of reverts has accumulated. Cullinane 13:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Saffron-related mallarky

I reverted some vandalism he had done to an article on a school in Brighton, which seems to have upset him! DuncanHill 16:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No content dispute

There is no content dispute. Arcayne dishonestly removed a reliably sourced attribution claiming that the source didn't say what I said that it said. Furthermore, he reverted to an unsourced contribution made by an anonymous account. You also misread what I said and wrote about Andreasegde. Please read it again. I'm afraid you are misinformed. Lastly, Arcayne has been doing this for a long time in several different articles and I have the diffs. —Viriditas | Talk 21:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he has the diffs...which rather show his edit-warring than mine. I actually have a pages-long list of his behavior, which I just keep compiling for his inevitable RfC. This could go back and forth, and Viriditas will undoubtedly reply (he isn't really that nice, but he is certainly predictable). Whether he replies or not (and the only reason he would is if he's stalking my edits again) is immaterial. My views on one of the less-pleasant folk in Wikipedia is hardly of value here, so I won't be replying.

Anyway, I reverted his edit, as the source claimed didn't actually say what the statements tied to it said. He has since added a better source, so I no longer have an issue with it. It's what I asked for, and he complied with that request. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's false. You reverted an edit[6] where the source did claim exactly what was requested [7] and you recently engaged in wikistalking behavior by showing up on WP:LEAD to participate in a discussion about citations that I had been engaged in for some time. You also stalked me to San Francisco burrito at 04:51, 24 September 2007 and Spam (food) on 05:02, 24 September 2007. —Viriditas | Talk 22:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Tweety21

Tweety21 (talk · contribs) is asking for unblock. Since the original block she has engaged in sockpuppetry, although it could be that no one had previously had a decent talk with her about how this place works. I am leaning toward giving her a second chance and would appreciate your views on the discussion going on at her talk page. Thatcher131 19:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: In Wikipedia, X is an Article, not Evil

In general, I like your new essay In Wikipedia, X is an Article, not Evil. It’s something that certainly needs to be read by a great many editors, perhaps before they begin editing. The main constructive criticism I would offer is that it is rather long-winded. Many of those who move quickly to personal attacks are not the patient, reflective sort likely to read the whole article – they have their opinion, are rarely interested in acknowledging facts to the contrary, and (in their mind) only have to straighten out the biased idiot who is messing with the “truth”. Besides which, attention spans are not what they used to be. Perhaps you could tighten it up and add some brevity (and maybe even a bit more levity)? Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 15:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And here I thought you had just finished the first-pass, blowing-off-years-of-steam version! ;-) Askari Mark (Talk) 19:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Jack Merridew

Thank you for the welcome note. I really cannot believe the childness and mindless ness of some of the comments especially theis Jack Merridew guy. I thought I would drop you a note to say that an editor as an IP address) had removed some comments from my talk page, and then Jack Merridew reverted them again? I really do not understand fully what is going on, but i feel that he has got a vandetta against me even though I have only made one or two edits to the actual encyclopedia. Surely his recent allegations and behaviour would not be tolerated by any other user, is he one of wikipedia's owners? Anyhow I am going to upload a better picture to the Chris Conleya rticle as the onen that is there is a little blurred. Can you please keep an eye on these rougue editors to make sure they don't bully me anymore? Regards Punkguy182 19:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Shrub 'o doom

Thanks for blocking this one, I was just about to go in and block SoD too, that was a pretty vicious trick with the page. I couldn't even fully load the first one...I wonder what that does to the database servers... Dreadstar † 08:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ditto from me for that "Kramerkidd" character. I thought another admin had blocked him and I thanked him for it. Thought I should correct that but I just got back from rescuing my son who had a blowout on his way home from work...and it's 2:42 AM here and I'm way too lazy to log in to boot. Thanks and good night! Regards, User:PMDrive1061 via --71.102.80.39 09:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

UK

My personal apologies for the incident triggered by a vandal. I have replied here. --Jacob.jose 14:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, would appreciate if you could unblock the bot for further test run unless you insist that I file a bot request. Through my tests, I have been trying to figure out stuff like the number of edits per day to request.. Would something like 250 edits/day (max) be an acceptable rate? or say, 1000 edits/week (since I plan to run the bot on weekends)? --Jacob.jose 14:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your directions; I have made a request here --Jacob.jose 15:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: List of GLB People

I had since stopped my actions after objections were made on this Talk page, as you could see above. I also noticed that the users erased it from their Talk pages and I let it go. I am offended that an AN would be raised about this, especially after my repeated contributions to Wikipedia over several years. Raising the issue on a user's talk page was a "kinder" and "gentler" approach than notifying administrators. Your comment didn't provide me a direct link to the argument, though frankly I want nothing to do with it as I am tired of the commentary per David Fuchs as it is going around in circles. I assume he was the one who started the AN, as he has since gone to my RfC on Mattisse and seems to now have an agenda against me, which I have been kind enough to ignore and not raise issues about on the RfC. Please keep in mind that I myself was the subject of an invalid Warning from Mattisse, and I was kind enough to raise an RfC for commentary instead of notifying administrators. I try to handle problems on my own or ask for commentary from other users about the situation. Again, I find this highly offensive and in bad faith, and think the administrators could have done better than this by looking at my Talk page. - Cyborg Ninja 23:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for any misunderstanding. I meant the AN and David Fuch's actions were offensive, not you for notifying me. I suspected there was more commentary from admins about this, but I've looked at the AN section and there isn't. - Cyborg Ninja 23:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I apologise for comments on your talkpage which indicated that I was displeased by the response to my queries, and accept your comments that it was directed at the raising of the matter at WP:AN and not my intervention.

I have assumed good faith in not questioning why individuals were even considered as potential recipients for further comments for positions they had taken in a closed RfA (not that I noted either you or the complainant there), and I do not care for whatever methods or routes were used when it is the result that matters. Also, it is my opinion that experience of and in WP requires a greater scrutiny of possible breaches of etiquette by long time contributors - as the individuals should know what is and isn't permitted. As it is I have closed the comment as resolved by your confirmation that you are not pursuing the matter. I trust that this is the end of this matter. LessHeard vanU 23:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

That is fine with me. Thanks! --Mattisse 00:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the sanity check[8]. I though twice and realized my comment was unhelpful and removed it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 01:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Thanks for your intervention on the ANI. This is the result of your kindly encouragement:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse 2

Thanks, --Mattisse 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Scanner

You commented on the USANA Talk page that a poster is in the same geographical location as USANA itself. How close to the corporation is the poster? Also, how are you capable of monitoring these sorts of things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerald Black (talk • contribs) 22:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a function for ip addresses entitled "whois" (and another one using the same system) which runs a reverse tracking system. For most addresses this will locate the ISP and its local hub, and will sometimes find who the ip is registered to. That is the one commented on the USANA talkpage. There is also a service called Wikiscanner which does much the same thing, but investigates if the ip is owned by an organisation. This service was not used, since the ip's were conforming with WP practice once made aware. I would comment that usually registered accounts cannot be traced in these ways. LessHeard vanU 12:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SSP

It seemed quicker to me to go to AIV and just get the blocks in place, but I have to claim a little ignorance, not having spent much time at WP:SSP (though I knew it was there). From my standpoint, it's quicker to report them to AIV, or perhaps just more familiar for me. I can do an SSP report in the future if it's more appropriate. Tonight I'm going to read up on WP:RFCU and consider posting a request there to have the IP identified and blocked longer, because this has been occurring for a few days and over several accounts now. Any advice? Sorry if I circumvented process; Not at all intentional. Into The Fray ^T/C 13:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did wind up filing an SSP report because I was able to identify the underlying IP based on contributions. Thanks for your advice. Into The Fray ^T/C 23:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Two of Us

User:Classicfilms made Two of Us a DAB page and moved the existing song article previously under that name to Two of Us (1969 song). IMO, that's not in the spirit of how pages in WP should be named. The Beatles song spawned the other works for which the like-named articles exist. How does one protest/revert such a move? Can you step-in, please? I may be wrong, and if so, I'll accept your perspective on the matter. John Cardinal 03:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

re "My talkpage" moved from User:El_C's talkpage

What was the point of that? It is still in the history, and you could have simply <redacted> the comment - with a note commenting it was from a banned user - or left a message under it. I would not have attempted to contact this user, but I am concerned that you did not display the good faith in allowing me to deal with it myself. I am quite familiar with the policy regarding banned users, possibly more than you are in respect of editing other editors talkpages.

I find it difficult to reconcile your earnest attempts to do what is right by Wikipedia (by your standards) with your abuse and violations of the policies and principles you are attempting to uphold. LessHeard vanU 12:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I rollbacked an edit from a banned user editing through an open proxy. Arguing this does not display good faith is, frankly, astonishing. El_C 12:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Banned users get reverted, does not matter which page. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

From Help:Reverting#Admin feature#Rollback, "...If you use the rollback feature for anything other than vandalism or for reverting yourself, it's polite to leave an explanation on the article talk page, or on the talk page of the user whose edit(s) you reverted." refers only to articles, not user talkpages, and generally removing content from another users talkpage is not permissable per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. As it is, I am suggesting that WP:CIVIL required an edit summary at the very least, if the policy/guideline (a link would be appreciated) on acting on upon edits by banned users is in conflict with the above pages. LessHeard vanU 21:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:Ban#Enforcement by reverting edits: "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves (this includes article talk pages, reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner). As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion." El_C 21:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So, what part of "...reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner..." (per your quote above) do you need help with? LessHeard vanU 21:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Can≠should. El_C 22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In light of "WP:Talk page guidelines/Editing comments" you might have to reconsider that interpretation. LessHeard vanU 22:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

As for your original note: is this how you normally conduct yourself? That's your idea of a polite request? El_C 00:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yup.LessHeard vanU 12:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You could have avoided all this acrimony and longwindedness by just asking to revert banned users on this page yourself. Simple, uncomplicated, non-hostile. El_C 20:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You could have avoided it by leaving an edit summary when you removed a third parties message on my talkpage, per my original post. I am uncertain that you even looked at my page when you used rollback, as I know it can be operated from the user contrib history, so any request to do my own reverting would not have been seen, but, hey, I'm going to AGF. LessHeard vanU 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It would have been seen. El_C 20:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Click there to open your card! → → →

My dear Wikipedian LessHeard vanU,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 36 supports, 3 opposed, and 1 neutral. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, or even if you just stopped by to make a comment, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. Since I am a new admin, if you have any suggestions or concerns, feel free to inform me of them. Thank you and good day.

The Placebo Effect

Credits

This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor, who in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunately this is not entirely my own design.

This end the usual RFA thanks spam. You may return to your regular editing now.

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 01:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your position.

I would hope you would reconsider your thoughts on the matter concerning User_talk:167.206.140.11 A three month period would seem a short period of time to continue to vandalize after 3 final warnings have been issued within that space of time. Can you honestly not see from this user's talk page that he does not contribute to wikipedia and that his edits have had a very familiar tone over the course of one year's vandalism on wikipedia? User5802 16:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The OTHER user I reported at User talk:121.45.218.12 has not vandalized after his final warning. However I felt because of his interjected racism into wikipedia here this may call for a speedier removal than normal. I do understand this may not follow wikipedia policy, and if racism does not constitute a ban after 2 recent warnings than I understand this user not being banned. User5802 16:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the WP:ANI information. This concerns the second individual User talk:121.45.218.12 which I agreed may have been too early of a report. Can you please give me to a response to your statements on the first individual User_talk:167.206.140.11 having not recently posted after the 3 final warnings that are on his page. I would like to know if you still hold the position this user should not be banned, after looking at User_talk:167.206.140.11 and viewing the similar postings this user has made in his vandalism of wikipedia over the course of 10 months, AFTER he has received at least 2 final warnings User5802 16:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. It does appear that there have been some constructive edits from this IP although they have been few and far between the vandalism. These constructive edits occurred approximately 10 months ago. I count a total of 4 constructive edits out of 29 instances of vandalism here. What would generally cause a user to receive a long term or permanent ban? Can you give an example of a user having received one of these types of bans? User5802 16:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

~*Curtsey*~

As a fellow aficionado of humor (as your archive box so ingeniously shows - I'm waiting to see what you do with the number 6... ), I am humbled by your bestowal of the humorous award to me. I realize I have a wacky sense of humor, and not everyone "gets it", but it is nice to know there are those who do appreciate it! Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 02:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

ROFL Well, that's better than the option I was thinking of! ~*Giggle*~ Ariel♥Gold 02:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

To my esteemed and valued colleague LessHeard VanU

I thank my esteemed colleague LessHeard vanU for the appreciated and insightful comments on the Kreepy krawly talk page regarding the No Personal Attacks policy. Perhaps User: Kreepy krawly will communicate in a more sophisticated manner in the future so as not to sow confusion as was the result in this case. The comments of my esteemed colleague LessHeard vanU are always valued and important to User: Kreepy krawly. I invite LessHeard vanU to revisit the other sections of the important topic: Trivia is what Wikipedia does best; Wikipedia has become bigger than itself. In these sections several inappropriate personal attacks lacking direction or substance will be noted, and the offending users notified appropriately. Various veiled personal attacks will be noted. If there remains a failure to deal with these obvious personal attacks inadequately described above, it will be assumed that either User: Kreepy krawly has become a target of unfair recrimination or that that style of personal attacks is acceptable to the Wikipedia community. Thank you in advance for your efforts in this regard. Kreepy krawly 15:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll look over it. LessHeard vanU 15:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Just as our group suspected would happen happened. I would have expected more, but I have learned not to get my hopes up when it comes to the culture around here, and that makes many non-Wikipedians very sad, as several thousand non-Wikipedians who rely on this Human Knowledge Metarepository (yes, it is no longer a mere encyclopedia), are extremely frustrated by institutionalized vandalism. I have raised the issue of trivia, and the broader issues that it represents, to over 5000 unregistered users, who are following this discussion very carefully, as it is just the beginning of a new dawn for the Wikipedia, and an end to vandalism. Your move is considered a blanking of sorts, and we consider it to be vandalism. Please do not do this again. We will use every tool on this site to stop institutional vandalism. We will use every tool available to sideline our arguement, which is yet a sapling in a bizarre, twisted forest. Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation, my esteemed colleague. Oh, and as you "look over it," it would be responsible of any user to take note of actual meanings and circumstances, and to place them in the correct context. Kreepy krawly 20:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks to your careful comments regarding Kreepy krawly. That'll do it. That's enough. Easy does it. In finality, this user is making every attempt to be nice, in contrast to the actual discussions currently raging outside the confines of Wikipedia regarding the Wikipedia Trivia argument and other metacognitions. Other users in this non-Wikipedia forum have not been so nice, but it is my job as "DC" of Kreepy krawly to manage official affairs and correspondence. I have alot of work to do, and the content recently posted is taken as demeaning, insulting, and distracting. We have no use for these comments, however they are appreciated in the context and scale from which we notice them. Nor is your personal identiy relevant, as you indicated yourself to be such and such. Kreepy krawly has no use for direction from other Wikipedia users, as we are entirely not confused about Wikipedia policies, however illusiory that may be. We recommend to this user an article that requires the expert and appreciated attention of a capable editor: Impossible bottle. Please feel free to redirect your unwanted energies to important issues such as this, as Kreepy krawly and many others will directly benefit from your efforts in this regard. Kreepy krawly 21:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant link?

What do you mean 'irrelevant link'? Did you actually read what I had written about the famous Aldershot gig of 1961? It is a famous part of Beatles history. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make it irrelevant! Please restore the link. Jack1956 15:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, per my comments at your talkpage. LessHeard vanU 15:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's very impressive, but I still dispute that my link was 'irrelevant'. The Aldershot gig is a part of Beatles history. Jack1956 15:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see what you mean. My mistake was to put it as a separate link rather than putting a brief mention into the body of the text. My apologies. Jack1956 20:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

It did show a certain level of care and thought in its execution! Makes a welcome change from "poo"! DuncanHill 12:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thanks, LessHeard vanU! Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was a success, and I look forward to getting started! Hiberniantears 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

hi mate

he is not NisarKand because Beh-Nam is a Tajik and NisarKand an Awghan, an ethnic Pashtune. Dear Admins, plz check that out also his IPs. They are two different User. While NisarKand and DilbarJan are one and the same User and a nationalistic one but Beh-Nam has nothing to do with such activities. DilbarJan(/NisarKand) claimed he would helping Taliban but since Beh-Nam is a Persian and the Taliban were looking for cleansing Tajiks who could he be NisarKand self since Dilbar is allready NisarKand!? Plz dear Admins, unblock him. Beh-Nam is for a long time on Wikipedia and he didn´t do sth bad either against any nations nor against any User or any articles. The admins of Wikipedia now banned two or three of Tajiks who were one o the important ones here at least they were the sole Tajiks who were active. Plz Admins, ban DilbarJan who is writing articles from his nationalistic view. With best regards