User talk:LessHeard vanU

User:VivianDarkbloom

You need to unblock User:VivianDarkbloom. There was nothing to establish that this user was using sockpuppets, only that she once had another account. We don't block editors for being sockpuppets without evidence that they're being sockpuppets. You've blocked this user because they've admitted to having another account. I've used another account, and I'm not going to tell you which one, are you going to block me as well? -- Ned Scott 04:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with Ned Scott on this. A sock puppet is an alternate account used deceptively and I don't believe this block applies at all. VivianDarkbloom said "I acknowledged two years ago that I've edited under another name." VivianDarkbloom mentioned "off-wikipedia harassment that was directed at my children by unsavory Wikipedian editors." If an editor has been harassed in the past, a clean start under a new name is a legitimate use of an alternate account. The incivility VivanDarkbloom has expressed is understandable, considering comments like these that have been directed at her in the past. VivanDarkbloom should be unblocked. --Pixelface (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

P

I like the in memoreum section. sock it to 'em.--Crestville (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All's well. I just have so little to contribute these days.--Crestville (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Left-handed guitar

Re: ""Shout! The Story of the Beatles" gives a pretty good account of Macca's discovering the sinister way of playing guitar.":

Like gauche, not one of my very favorite words. Is this Shout a movie or something else?

Re: "I would also comment that, per point 3, it is easier for a left/right handed combo to teach each other chord fingerings, etc. since you can face each other and "mirror" the chord shape the other is showing...:

That never occurred to me. It might be more efficient to have half of the guitarists in the world play right-handed and the other half play left-handed. I tried once to teach myself left-handed, and it was fairly torture--but at the time I only had one guitar so it was something of a sacrifice to string it backward. TheScotch (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

re that Arbcom case

Hi! (re your message some time ago} As if my abysmal personal life, and the Arbcom case, aren't bad enough, I am now showing signs contracting Wikipediaholicism! BANG! I have even taken to inserting the SAME POST in two different places on my talk-page! Politely, --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome, I am sure. I received your (latest) post, then the computer crashed (not your fault), and I was just about to save this post. Toning it down, you say? I will, I will. With the greatest respect, etc. till the cows come home. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

RFAr Sabbatical

Thanks for your comment on my talk page and thanks for your effort at the ArbCom case. I disagree though -- I don't have any reason to think that anything I say will make any difference to the ArbCom because a majority either aren't reading or aren't thinking. Since we all expect a community decision in this case, it seems to me that it's better to save my energies for that (and I'm pretty sure I'm not even needed there -- other editors make the case much better than I ever can). It's not only a waste to try to convince the ArbCom, it's a waste to try to convince anybody else using that page -- it's already so long that it would repel almost anybody new trying to learn about the case from it, but I think it may be deleted once the case is over. And Bainer's reply to our reactions shows he isn't even reading them with any care. I don't think anything more needs to be demonstrated to anybody. And it feels so much better when I stop banging my head against a wall. I recommend it. Noroton (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

re User:Philippe block of User:Victor64 and subsequent discussions

• archiving.

User:Ultraviolet scissor flame

Hi Mark, the above user has been making nonsensical edits to Paul McCartney, both myself and edge have asked him to stop. will you please have a word in his shell-like? Cheers, Vera, Chuck & Dave (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: my edits to list of musical instruments played by John Lennon

Dear Mark,

No problem. I provided the list of his instruments to illustrate the fact that John Lennon was a multi-instrumetalist who experimented with variety of sounds and contributed to the uniqueness of many tracks (with The Beatles, and after). His many creative ideas were recorded with introduction of sounds from a variety of his instruments, like bringing his own Mellotron to the Abbey Road Studios for the recording of Starwberry Fields, and many other facts. However, you have full rights to believe that the article size should be imposing a restriction, even on essential facts about a figure of such caliber as John Lennon. His main job was playing musical instruments. That's why I added the list of instruments played by John Lennon. Regards, Steveshelokhonov 22:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It is Agent007ravi, again

He appears to still be violating WP:SYN while making helpful edits, see this. You may reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I had seen that earlier (I have his page watchlisted) and note that the links are dated January this year. I also noted that he is currently editing, after a break of a few days. If he keeps out of trouble then fine; and if he doesn't, I will do my dropping like a ton of bricks impersonation upon his editing rights. Thanks for the heads up, anyhow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

fps (First person view)

I didn't know it was from "first-person view" of how Jimbo is talking. And lo! If you want to post a complaint again, used the autosystem. Signed, Nothing444 00:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The Gift of Freedom

Ahh, the gift of freedom. You are free to ignore me, as I am to you (within reason lol). Signed with Freedom, Nothing444 00:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you

I can has mop?

Hi LessHeard vanU! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1). I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being an admin to the high standard that the community deserves. Seraphim♥ Whipp 17:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

USANA Article

Nice joke about your comment not being about USANA :P As for the inflation rate comment, it wasn't mentioned in the article which is referenced, so I'm not sure if that's the case. If we're going to be going into that much specifics about the companies finances then should we maybe talk about creating a new sub heading? If so I'll try to gain a better grasp about how the financial market works. From what I've read previously their Q3 was only profitable after they restructured their Q2 earnings to lower them. I haven't read into much detail about this sort of thing simpley because I thought we were staying away from talking about the companies finances. Jean314 (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. The company commented on why the drop occured and attributed it to a decline in the number of people selling their product in the US. If it were due to inflation, I'm certain they would have mentioned that in defense of the decline. I'm not posting this based on my own data, but from what is supplied in the article from the Associated Press that I've referenced (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080206/earns_usana_health_sciences.html?.v=1). I'm sure they count as a 3rd party source, but do we actually need them to state whether or not it is attributable to inflation when the company has already indicated what it is attributable too? Jean314 (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Then my understanding is that my previous addition regarding their Q4 announcement for 2007 stays because it was information which was published by a third party source and features the companies stance on the issue. Correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean314 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, don't worry about it. It's good that you're policing my posts even if you did make a mistake in this case ;)

Jean314 (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

About edit summaries

It was a mere suggestion. I'd do the same to anyone, disruptive or not, if many of their edits did not have a description in the box. You think it would incite something? Please reply on your talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Thank you for your help with the Spellmanloves67 dispute. I'm afraid that he keeps adding the non-relevant information back into the article on WebCT. He left me a note that he was going to keep posting it.Sxbrown (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible Lyle123 sockpuppet

Hi, LH. I popped by during Wikivacation and saw this guy's edits right out of the chute. I am absolutely convinced we're dealing with banned user User:Lyle123, whos MO is to do exactly the same thing via his socks, namely nonsense articles related to Disney and the Disney Channel. The fact that he's using taxoboxes really convinces me that this is no first-time user. Back to vacationing.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'm referring to User:DominicanKingx.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking AnitaLover. Now my user page can be at peace. No reply necessary, just giving you my thanks and salutations. —Victor, Sr. (discussion) (contributions) 21:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Crossca

While I'm somewhat loathe to criticise another admin's block, don't you think your block of the above was a bit hasty? Did you take into account my comment, and that of Luna Santin? _GB^T/C 22:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, the same applies (to a lesser extent) to User:AnitaLover. She'd not vandalised past final warning, and whilst her actions did indicate a troll account to an extent, there was dialogue in progress... _GB^T/C 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hiya - on Crossca I do take your point, and admit that I failed to note that it wasn't the first time they'd uploaded the pictures concerned. On Anita, I suppose the proof of the pudding will be in the eating - I agree that there were trollish elements to their first few edits (I said as much on their talk page). I don't know - maybe I come down on the more liberal side of WP:AGF! Anyway, my regards to Cornwall - I was in Tintagel many many years ago, and remember it as being beautiful! _GB^T/C 22:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU's invalid block of nfitz

• Before heading there, perhaps best to start at WP:WQA, as I wanted neutral input on what I perceive to be Personal Attacks and a lack of civility on your part. Please be advised that I have done so. Nothing personal, and I hope you had a good Easter. Nfitz (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Madonna Albums Discography

Thanks for your assistance and advice. I do not mind being inconvenienced for the great good of wiki. Very much appreciated 60.234.242.196 (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• archiving.

Wikiquette Alert regarding User:Nfitz

Hi LessHeard. I'm handling a Wikiquette Alert by User:Nfitz regarding a recent block that he says you issued against him. I just wanted to drop you a quick note and (a) let you know that the WQA has been filed, and (b) ask if you could briefly explain to me what happened that led up to his block. He claims that he doesn't understand the reason for the block and nobody has clearly explained it to him, but I see in the edit history that you say you have explained the situation to him several times and don't wish to talk to him anymore.

I have advised Nfitz that he should probably leave you alone for the time being, as continuing to pester you about the matter is likely only to inflame the situation further. I'd like to hear your side of the issue as well, or at least see if I could get a more specific pointer to the behaviors that led to his block, so I could perhaps address the WQA more effectively. I don't know much about what happened, and I don't have a lot of time at the moment to do the manual research myself.

Thanks in advance. :) I'll watch your userpage for replies. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 06:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied to your talkpage. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. My personal opinion in all of this now that I've read up, is that Philippe's block against User:Victor64, and your block against User:Nfitz, may both have been hasty, but not completely unwarranted. Nfitz has definitely taken this issue to a much larger extreme than necessary, and I will advise him (as others have already) that his continued pestering of you and other admins in this situation will likely result in another block for WP:POINT and other disruptive behavior. As Hans Adler mentioned below, it might be worth reviewing the blocks themselves for future reference, but I'm going to stay out of that process for the time being. Thanks for your time. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have seen you reply to KieferSkunk [1], and this is in reply to the following sentence: "The first archive was under the summary - per WP:DENY; Disruption of Wikipedia, which continuing to pursue a discussion when the other party has made it clear they are not going to respond and therefore disrupting the building of the encyclopedia, knowingly is vandalism."

May I suggest that you read the page WP:DENY and think about whether that sentence makes sense? Until September 2006 it included vague wording about "other negative editors", but at the time it was about "categories, user pages, and tracking pages which serve to describe or document patterned edit abuse". Re-reading guidelines to see if they have changed is always a good idea, but it appears that this one never said anything remotely similar to what you think it says.

Or are you just ignorant of WP:VAND#NOT? Note that the things listed there as not vandalism include "stubbornness" and "harassment or personal attacks". That's a policy, and the wording has been there since 2005.

Your handling of this matter made me look whether you are open to recall. Perhaps you should consider this, as it might save a lot of drama. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: According ot your simplistic definition of trolling ("Making comment for the intent of creating a reaction, rather than attempting to build the encyclopedia, is trolling.") my last comment was also trolling, as is this one. You might want to reconsider that as well, because it seems that many dedicated admins spend most of their time trolling. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Point by point; Firstly, knowingly disrupting Wikipedia = a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia = vandalism. I consider that Nfitz has been and is continuing to disrupt the encyclopedia in pursuing this matter despite a majority of respondees commenting that actions were appropriate. I thus archived the comments, citing I was "denying recognition" for these actions - per ...Vandalism is encouraged by offering such users exceptional notice. (I would further comment that WP:DENY is in fact an essay, rather than a guideline. There is a template which makes it quite clear when reading the page.)

Secondly, I made it clear that I was being trolled when again archiving more comments - as I had made it clear that I had said all that I was prepared to and was not going to respond further. Comment, however poorly or uncivilly articulated, that is designed to move a discussion forward is not trolling. Not accepting the reasons already (and more than once) given and repeatedly demanding different answers is not communication, and is unlikely to bring about a satisfactory conclusion. WP:TROLL is also an essay, of course, but it is not a term that I use lightly or frequently.

Thirdly, re WP:VAND#NOT... I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I have made clear that I consider Nfitz's actions in this matter to be vandalism as it is disruptive (that is the reason given on the block summary). I did not block Nfitz because they were stubborn or because they made a personal attack, but by (in this instance) by stubbornly repeating a personal attack upon the reasoning given by another admin - despite a specific warning not to - they were being disruptive. I have not blocked or even warned Nfitz since -even though they continue to use the term lie, and argue for its use in an environment where it is considered unsavoury.

Under the circumstances, I find your comments about me to being open to recall faintly ludicrous. It is for the simple reason that I do not care to have such actions started by, for instance, people unable to tell the difference between an essay and a guideline that I have no business with that process. I can have my buttons revoked by the community via a RfC, or by ArbCom following a RfAR, where there needs to be evidence shown that there has been systematic abuse of the tools, or (per my userpage) you can find a couple of admins in good standing to come and ask me to give them up. I am not participating in a popularity contest, because I do not do the sysop bit to win friends or influence people - butt because I think I can assist the encyclopedia by doing the difficult things and unpopular acts when necessary. That is why I am more recently found at AIV, commenting at WP:AN and WP:ANI, or getting into arguments over at ArbCom. Looking at your recent contributions I can see we have had little opportunity to interact (since I stay away from the homeopathy related matters).

In closing, I do not consider your comments trolling - as you are seeking a conclusion. I may feel that you may wish to work on your civility, but I assume good faith in your efforts in this matter and trust you will find my comments reasonable - although perhaps not satisfactory. I would define the difference between you and Nfitz as exampled by Wikipedia:TROLL#Pestering - "If they continue asking the question even after you have clearly answered it, or begin complaining that you will not help them, there is a chance of them being trolls". Under the circumstances you are welcome to raise any point you may feel I have not answered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that I came across to you as uncivil. I tried to be as diplomatic as possible, but as I was outraged about your behaviour (not your intentions) it wasn't very easy. I hope I have cooled down enough now to be more civil. I am not satisfied with your response, and I take your last sentence as permission to explain why.

Unfortunately I feel that you still do not understand the problem. There is a general tendency on Wikipedia to throw around links to essays, guidelines or policies, such as WP:TROLL or WP:POINT, instead of just writing "troll" or "point", even in cases where the technical definitions on these pages have nothing at all to do with the matter at hand. This happens mostly to semi-experienced users, but unfortunately some admins have this habit as well.

Here is the problem with that: If you say "Nfitz is a troll", then Nfitz will just think that you are being uncivil to him, and he can choose to ignore that in order to keep the channel of communication clear. If you say "Nfitz is a WP:TROLL", then you accuse Nfitz of fitting the official definition of a troll as it is written down in WP:TROLL. You have done it with WP:TROLL, and you have done it before that (indirectly, via WP:DENY) with WP:VANDAL. If the definition does not fit, then this tends to be disruptive, because it confuses your target ("Why does he think that I deliberately compromise the integrity of Wikipedia?" – "Why does he think that I deliberately exploit tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people?") and can complicate the resolution of the conflict.

This is a mistake that everybody can make. A lot of people, including admins, seem to be making it habitually. But when you are told about it and you don't realise that you have made a mistake. When you don't admit that you have made a mistake, so that everybody can move on. That's when it becomes a problem.

You have used links to policies whose clear wording never applied and never will apply to the respective situations. You seem to have done this to justify preventing a user who wanted you to apologize for a borderline block from contacting you further.

The problem that I see here is your insistence that something is the case even after you have been alerted to the fact that it is obviously not so. This kind of behaviour is extremely unnerving for your opponent, and it seems that it was exactly such a "lying" situation which led to Nfitz's block in the first place. (But unlike the present situation, I did not examine that one in detail and may be wrong about that.) I can see two explanations for this kind of behaviour, neither of which puts you into a good light. If this is only due to temporary circumstances, please consider a wiki break.

Here are short answers to your various points, so you can see where exactly your logic breaks down:

Point one. Your equation is false. You are ignoring the distinction between article space and user talk space. Normal comments on your talk page, even grossly inappropriate ones (which these were not), are no danger for the integrity of the project. You are also assuming bad faith with respect to Nfitz in a situation in which there is no need to do so.

Point two. You stopped communicating with Nfitz in a situation where this was likely to lead to escalation. Nfitz felt that he had the choice between trying once again or escalating to the next step in dispute resolution immediately, and being told he should have contacted you instead. I think this would not have happened, but it was not unreasonable for Nfitz to think so. He wanted very specifically an apology from you. I don't think you had apologised to him at this stage, and I don't think you have done so by now.

Point three. I am saying that you are misreading WP:VAND. As I said under point one, your logic for declaring Nfitz a vandal is faulty. WP:VAND#NOT is a clarification, which has obviously been included into the policy in order to make it absolutely clear that this is not a legitimate reading. (By the way, Nfitz has said elsewhere that he has a wife and a baby, and he is currently on parental leave. I think we can refer to him as a "he".) --Hans Adler (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I adhere to a very strict definition of vandalism as "obvious defacement", and thus tend to only use the term in trivial matters. When it comes to giving users a hard time, persisting in asking questions and expecting different answers, etc., I make a point not to use the term "vandalism" for that behavior - instead, the terms I use/policies I point to include those on wikilawyering, harassment, personal attacks, canvassing/forum shopping, trolling, disrupting WP to make a point, assuming bad faith, etc. (Had to be careful how I wrote that - I almost said that I engage in those activities! :)) As you can see, it becomes a complex issue at that point.

In light of that, I would characterize Nfitz's behavior primarily under WP:POINT, perhaps with a touch of WP:TROLL and WP:CANVAS thrown in for good measure, but I do not believe it constitutes vandalism. Personally, I don't think it should really matter what term we use for stuff like this - the end result is the same, in that you don't really want to deal with Nfitz anymore. (shrug) You certainly have that right, and it's apparent that Nfitz has not been respecting that. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(arbitary section break)

(ec - responding to Hans Adler) The irony of this, is that you are inferring of me precisely that which I am suggesting of Nfitz - a failure to recognise that the other side may have valid points. Perhaps I am wrong, but am unable to contemplate the reasons why. My response is that I am willing to agree to disagree and move on; Nfitz wants to have me apologise and admit my fault. I cannot do so, as I do not think that I am wrong. I realise that you also believe me to be at fault, but I can point to several admins who reviewed my actions and not thought it inappopriate and to KieferSkunk who, while certainly not condoning the actions, could understand why I came to the decisions I did. I don't want Nfitz to apologise and admit to fault, I want him to stop referring to comments made by another Wikipedian as lies and move on.

Specifically responding to your points, I did not and do not call Nfitz a troll or vandal - I was referring to specific actions as being vandalistic and trolling. By your application of logic the initial act of replacing the content of WP:Five Pillars with "This is retarded" is not then vandalism - as it is outside of article space, and nor is leaving obscenities on user talkpages for the same reason. Sorry, I do a lot of anti-vandal work and those acts most certainly are vandalism.

With the points you have raised, I will respond once more. Nfitz has been disruptive, in that he referred to comments by another as lies - contrary to Wikipedia:CIVIL#Examples, last two points in first section - and was cautioned that it was inappropriate. Nfitz was then knowingly disruptive by repeating the phrase and arguing that they be permitted to say it since it was appropriate. Lie has a pretty specific meaning - an untruth told in full knowledge of its inaccuracy in an attempt to alter or hide a truth, and is a very serious accusation. Philippes use of the term "vandal only" is not and should never have been considered a lie; even if its accuracy may be debatable. I had no problem with Nfitz questioning the validity and tariff of the block, but only with the use of language. For this knowing disruption, including on the blockers talkpage, in the form of a personal attack, I then issued the block. I stand by my consideration, and have explained all this more than once to Nfitz. I applied policy correctly. Nfitz believes that the original block was in error, but has gone in entirely the wrong way in addressing his enquiry. He then comments that he doesn't understand the reason for his own block, which is only reasonable if you agree that his interpretation of the rules, policies and guidelines - or why in particular they don't apply to him - is the correct one. I don't, and other editors versed in dealing with blocks and unblock requests also agree with me.

I see no possibility of Nfitz agreeing with my actions or reasoning, so I have decided to withdraw from the discussion. In the consideration that Nfitz's continuing (and increasingly belligerent) raising of points already answered I noted that I was denying what I now considered trolling, and used references to both WP:DENY and WP:TROLL, when archiving. Perhaps I was insensitive to Nfitz's feelings, but I doubt that any response - other than one which I am not prepared to give - would have been satisfactory.

Lastly, I have been considerably willing to explain myself and my actions to Nfitz and other parties - it is unfortunate that my explanations have not met with understanding (agreement was never on the agenda) but that has not been because of a lack of effort. When reviewed by outside parties my actions (and the initial actions by Philippe) have been found not to be an abuse of the sysop function. I am content with such a peer review. I am willing to move on, and continue working at keeping the encyclopedia environment as conducive and civil as possible. I would hope that others were, as well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC) (Oh, and I note that Victor64 is unblocked. If they return to editing, I trust that they realise that two instances of changing "taden" to the correct "Beach" in one article does not equal out replacing 6,600 bytes of information on one page and 9,200 letters on another with "This is retarded". The net effect is considerable vandalism, sufficient to indicate that the main or possibly only contribution is vandalism.)

I admit that I have not clearly distinguished between calling someone a troll or a vandal and calling their behaviour trolling or vandalising. Under the circumstances it would have been a bit complicated. I concede this point. However, you still haven't responded to my main point, which is a misapplication of policies (in the use of the terms "vandal" and "troll") as it is happening all the time and no big deal, followed by subsequent denial when confronted with the fact. You started by denying, now you are changing the subject. (My fault, in part: I see that I wasn't clear enough in my reply to your point 2. I am not saying you should have apologised; in fact I haven't analysed the situation. I am saying you hadn't given him what you wanted, and therefore it was a clear case for some kind of dispute resolution and not trolling. At least that's what I wanted to say.) You could have said "sorry, I don't know what I have been thinking, perhaps I should read the policies a bit more closely" at this point, but instead you pointed out that other people have been wrong about other things.

As a technical point, there is still a big difference between leaving an unwanted comment on your talk page and defacing WP:FIVE. The former clearly falls under WP:VAND#NOT and can by no stretch of the imagination compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. (Perhaps disruption, after a clear warning, which you have not given.) Calling this vandalising (or trolling) is counterproductive, and I would really like to get some kind of signal from you that indicates that you understand this.

When you read User talk:Sbharris#Heading off Wikidrama – does Nfitz fit your image of a troll? --Hans Adler (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Last things first, I found Sbharris' response quite illuminating - but I didn't need to review it for me to comment that I do not think that Nfitz is a troll; I considered his insistence in attempting to call me to (his) account by constantly contacting me to be trolling. Again, Nfitz has his feelings injured when I refer to specific incidents and he takes it to impugn his character - but will not accept that is what is so egregious in terming another Wikipedian's comments lies ("How dare you call me a vandal/troll for calling someone else a liar!?") I had earlier seen Sbharris' comment at Nfitz talkpage, but had forbored to comment to avoid escalating the situation.

On my part, I had failed to realise that you were commenting upon dispute resolution. Totally. My bad. Upon consideration, I think that dispute resolution was commenced - but it quickly failed to proceed. Nfitz complained about the grounds for my block - as he had about Philippes block of the pupil - yet was unable to accept the response(s). After a few exchanges the matter should have been taken to another venue, but it got stuck into a cycle. I broke the cycle by withdrawing from the discussion and archiving, with the suggestion of taking the matter to ANI, but very likely far too late in the day. Instead, in another example of the communication difficulties apparent throughout the case, Nfitz took it to WP:WQA - as they were apparently discomforted by the inference of my archiving edit summaries (which I noted to Nfitz that I would moderate in later archiving, before being aware of the report).

In conclusion, was there a breakdown in communication? Yes. Could it have been better handled? Yes. Are the parties going to learn from this and move forward? Ummm... well, there is always the possibility/hope... Has this matter, overall, effected the building of the encyclopedia? No (although parties have spent time on this that may have been used more productively elsewhere). Would I have done it differently? No, if there are failings of mine then they are inherent - but I suggest that they are far from being so disruptive as to negate the generally positive effect of my efforts as an admin.

I trust that I have at last addressed your concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(Further, upon another review of your post) I did not block Victor64, but I would have blocked without a final warning - I recall there were warnings on the editors talkpage - since I would be interested in preventing disruption to the encyclopedia. I would have blocked for 31 hours and risked resumption when the block lifted, but Philippe blocked indef and requested an undertaking not to resume the vandalism before lifting; different approaches to resolving the same problem.

To clarify, I have not termed Nfitz's latter campaign as vandalism - that was only to the disruption occasioned by knowingly violating policy by calling someone a liar, after a warning - but as trolling. I block(ed) for vandalism, but usually AGF trolling until it becomes clear that withdrawal is a better option.

I would also suggest that leaving an unwanted comment, even just one word, on a user talkpage can be far more disruptive than the childish replacement of an entire heavy traffic page with some gibberish; if that word is "Nazi", "paedophile", "racist", "Gooner" or something similar designed to upset or enrage the user. Often, a judgment is made on the intent of the vandalism and that perceived intent informs the decision rendered. Sysops (those who involve themselves in anti vandalism) necessarily make that judgement several times a day. Sometimes mistakes will be made, and again sometimes these mistakes will be compounded by more misunderstanding. It is unfortunate, but inevitable. It can be very distressing when it happens to you, but there is little that can really be done except to accept it. It goes with the territory. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Although there is a lot in your reply that I don't agree with, this is the first time that I actually feel that it was a kind of answer in the usual sense. This is probably because of the misunderstanding you mention. If you answered an aspect of my question that I wasn't even aware of, then it makes a lot more sense that what you said to my real concern was a bit careless.

I suspect that this kind of miscommunication has also been going on between Nfitz and Philippe and between Nfitz and you. The entire thing started when Philippe made a severe mistake. Initially, Nfitz said that blocking Victor64 was not OK. It seems that Nfitz soon made up his mind what he was really angy about: blocking Victor64 and using the term "vandal-only account". Apparently Philippe had missed completely how much the dispute had shifted. He could have said: "You're right, after 4 edits I shouldn't have written vandalism-only. Sorry, but this can happen, and I can't change it in the blog log." This could have ended the dispute immediately. Or not, but with Nfitz in a much weaker position.

If we assume that the "vandalism-only" matter had really been the main issue for Nfitz from the beginning (and it seems very likely), then completely denying all communication on this is essentially the equivalent of saying it was justified in the first place. His failure to assume good faith (Philippe apparently thought it was still mainly about the block itself) made him conclude that Philippe insisted it was a vandalism-only account although by now at least he knew it was not so. It makes sense to call that "lying", although that's obviously not a helpful characterisation. Similar to calling people's actions "trolling" or "vandalising". Philippe's failure of good faith was no more blatant than yours. The main difference was that he was punished by being blocked, and you are punished by having to read my lengthy explanations.

These were my last words on this matter unless you explicitly ask for another reply or it comes up again. But you are of course free to comment, and I will read it. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's cool. We can disagree on aspects large and small, and not resolve it, but still participate in a worthwhile process. It is important, I feel, that people can explain their position even when there is little or no likelihood of changing anything - although there is possibly an incremental/accumulative effect taking place. Admins are very likely to say, "...Because!", when discussing their actions, but they should always be available to explain their reasoning in response to civil enquiries. I hope that this is what happened - eventually - here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you two come to some sort of understanding on this. :) I was starting to get a little worried. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Kudos to HA for steering the discussion back into civility. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to Nantes, Tramway de Nantes and BusWay

Hi, sorry to involve you in this, I have been a spectator to these daily reverts. My past experience with User:Firstwind being difficult I usualy tend to assume he is wrong, however not being a native english speaker myself I want to be sure. Can you confirm that User:Schcambo is right grammatically on these articles? If as I suppose he is, how can User:Firstwind be convinced to stop reverting to his versions? Can you reply behind and not on my talk page to keep the conversation consistent? Thanks! Mthibault (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Manual of style should be the guideline for this query, but I will abbreviate it for you. When the article subject is American, British, Australian or any other English speaking nation, then the spelling and grammar follows the convention of that culture. When the subject is not of any English speaking nation then the style of the original editor should be followed - but the terminology should follow that of the native culture (i.e. we use the French spellings for the & and when it relates to the French based subject; Tramway de Nantes rather than Nantes Tramway.) The circumstances of the articles named are as follows:-

• Nantes; British English (I think) - Single spaces after fullstop/period in earliest edit, use of metric as main measure rather than imperial/American units. It just feels British rather than US in the first 20 or so edits...
• Tramway de Nantes; British English - per the first edit by User Captain Scarlet (spelled "standardisation" with an s rather than a z).
• BusWay; American English - per FirstWind who was the first editor, and who used the American dating method of (Month/Day/Year) instead of the British (Day/Month/Year) convention in the earliest edit.

What to do about FirstWinds alleged (because I haven't checked all their recent contributions, but am AGF'ing both you and them) intransigience regarding language use conventions? Firstly, point them at WP:MoS and note that the established convention should be followed in non English speaking culture subjects. If they are still unwilling to compromise their style then you may need to look for a Third Opinion, although requesting help from the Wikipedia:WikiProject France editors may be another option. As ever, the best way forward is to find consensus, remain civil, and keep on talking.

I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It does indeed. One of the main issues is that Firstwind claims he is a "native" english speaker while it seems obvious he isn't. However, is it gramatically correct to say "nearby" instead of "near" in the case of the Nantes article (an every day revert)? What about the "capital B capital W" part of the BusWay article? I'm trying to see if maybe people might be a bit picky with him because of his past or if his english is as garbled as mine... Thanks again. Mthibault (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In the context of the Nantes article, near is correct (but it is pretty WP:LAME to edit war over). BusWay is also correct, verified by a Google search for "BusWay Nantes".

It is possible that FirstWind is a native English speaker... but one with an inflated idea of how good a one they are. Usually none native speakers English is very poor or very good, and FirstWind is between the two. FirstWind also understands but cannot properly articulate English verb structures. My concern is more with their attitude, which gave rise to my warning them. Poor spelling and grammar are fine, as long as the editor allows others to correct any mistakes. FirstWind seems a little sensitive over such matters. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! For BusWay my question was about the sentence "(with capitals B and W reffering to the Nantes system)" that keeps being added and then deleted. Why do you say "they" about Firstwind? Mthibault (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I now see what you mean about "...with capitals B and W...". I think it unnecessary in the article text, since it is obvious when reading the title. As for referring (note correct spelling!?) to FirstWind as "they", it is a clumsy way of being gender neutral. I don't know if FirstWind is male or female, but I am not suggesting that they are not an individual. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking him. You may also wish to have a look at his checkuser case; at least five IPs were proven to have been used by him, but were never blocked. --Schcambo (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick look. I agree with Deskana that there is no use in blocking stale ip's. They may have been reassigned, even the more recently active ones. Since the main account is blocked any ip that is evidently FirstWind can be reported to AIV as a block avoiding sock (include a link to to FirstWind in the {{vandal|FirstWind}}} format in the report). If I'm around you can let me know, but I will as likely see it on AIV - which I have watchlisted. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Plus I learnt something about Singular_they ! Mthibault (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

DbelangeB (talk · contribs)

Hiya. I went ahead and blocked the rest of the Dbelanges as obvious block-evading socks (and per the user's admission on the sock case page). Your block is set to expire in a little under a day, so I figured I'd contact you first about switching the block time to indef. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 17:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the puppetmaster, Dbelange (talk · contribs), was indef blocked for something unrelated to puppetry. I blocked the socks based on the fact that he was using them to evade that block. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, and he also implied that you're a racist. I took the liberty of responding. =) --slakr^\ talk / 22:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It was more of a preemptive cut-em-off-at-the-pass, since invariably if I left it as only "administrators" or only "editors," the point would be brought up that either group is "out to get him/her." :P In any case, as a Trojan Administrator, I apparently have to resort to such nefarious tactics. ;) Though, I have to admit, I've always thought of myself as more of a Durex Administrator. :P --slakr^\ talk / 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey thanks, I wondered why no one else was tagging them, and now I know. Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Confederate till Death

I saw your note on his talk page and I wanted to sanity check my decline of his unblock request. Was your comment at all directed to the language I used in the decline? If so, I'll refactor. Ronnotel (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sellsellsell

Huh. My anti-vandal software did that without warning him. Of course, I could've reverted the report... Anyway, thanks for pointing that out! 21655 ^τalk/ _ʃign 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appreciate your response to my comment on the incidents notice board. I cherish my petulance!  ;-) Eganio^Talk 22:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

78.16.122.227

Sure. It was a short block and if you want to take responsibility, do. Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello LessHeard vanU. Would you revert the anons last edits at British Isles and Northern Ireland? I've reached my personal 2-revert limit. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

However, the anon changed existing content & ignored my requests for discussion. I would be happy to discuss things there if first the established edits are restored. Trust me, once they're restored, I'm not gonna sneak away. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, Administrator Daniel Case has reverted them & I've just opened up discussion with the anon. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Who needs youtube?

Who needs youtube, when our contributors can create such delectable mental images as this[2] with a mere edit summary? Thanks for my daily smile! Risker (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of LessHeard vanU

The category you wrote, Category:Alternate Wikipedia accounts of LessHeard vanU, is uncategorized. Please help improve it by adding it to one or more categories, so it may be associated with related categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro

This user is requesting to be unblocked - you had blocked him earlier today for civility violations. While I do agree with your block, this user has made constructive contributions in the past, and I feel an indefinite block is somewhat undeserving. He says that he has read through WP:CIVIL and feels he understands it and is willing to offer apologies to all involved. If you're not willing to fully unblock him (which again, I would understand - his recent comments were certainly quite severe), would you consider shortening this block to a few days? Thanks for your time, and please let me know if you wish to discuss this further. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Like I told Joe, it's up to you. I think he's ok to be unblocked now, if you're comfortable with it. Thanks for the reply. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As someone who was involved in this user's last few days, I would like to say I support the original block. This user is, and has been extremely uncivil to almost every editor he's come into contact with, and doesn't seem to understand the point of common courtesy. He trumpets his 13,000 edits, but upon further review less than 10% of those are actually to wikipedia articles. Most of his edits are to his sandbox, or to various talk pages. He has a long history of starting firestorms on multiple fronts, and turning what should be simple edits and consensus building into long arguments with everyone else involved. How many of his edits are actually constructive edits, and how many are talk page arguments that come out of his incivility and personal attacks?

He has a well-deserved reputation for being difficult, which last night was shown to be appropriate. He has feigned civility before. I support the original block.

If you'd like diffs on some examples, please let me know. Thank you for your time, and I appreciate your attention to the matter. Redrocket (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

He's just been unblocked, as unfortunately I hadn't realized you'd commented here. I've dealt with this user in the past, and he seems open to learning from his mistakes. I'm sure he'll be careful to do the same here. Should be fall back again, however, we will certainly be a little more careful about unblocking him. Thanks for your comments. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand blocks are there to protect wikipedia, and not to punish people who violate the policy. Even without his block for civility violations, he's still willfully violating the WP:3RR policy on Abigail Taylor, the article which he's taken ownership of and started all of last night's problems.

He made personal attacks, threats, WP:3RR violations, and used the article on fellatio to tell other editors acting in good faith to, well, I'm sure you understand. After all of that, he apologizes again to an admin who wasn't even involved in the matter, and the slate is wiped clean.

Again, I know blocks aren't there to punish people who violate policy, but I don't feel like this interpretation of policy is protecting the other 6-8 editors who spent time last night being personally attacked. At the very least, he should have his WP:3RR block reinstated, and should be at WP:1RR on the Abigail Taylor article, since his ownership of that article began the mess.

I do appreciate your time in this matter. I hope I don't come across as upset at wikipedia policy or you as an admin, it's just my obvious frustration at someone who spent last night trolling for arguments and violating policy being free to do so again. Thanks again for you attention. I'll also copy this to Hersford's page. Redrocket (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(OD)I appreciate your response, thanks for talking it out with me. He did violate WP:3RR last night and I had filed a complaint on him (when it was an ownership issue, and not yet a personal attack issue). That was moot when he was blocked. As a sign of good faith, I think that issue should be dropped. If he's going to go with a fresh start and keep it civil, I won't bring it up again and I'll advise other editors to do the same. If he doesn't, that'll become an admin matter. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• I was asked to have a look at this, and if I may, I have a few comments. Indefinite blocking is sometimes used in cases where the blocking admin is unsure how long the block should be in place for, or if they think the person being blocked should demonstrate that they have understood why they were blocked, and acknowledge this and say they will change or stop, before being unblocked. I happen to think that this seemingly persuasive "don't unblock unless they apologise/are contrite" approach, unless done very diplomatically, can actually make things escalate and get worse. The reason being that this approach can end up feeling like "do this in order to get unblocked" or, worse, "we are going to force you to grovel and apologise, or we won't unblock you". The key point here is the reaction of the person being blocked. First off, if you have never been blocked yourself, don't assume that you know what it feels like. Many people react poorly to being blocked. Sometimes that is a sign of a wider problem, but crucially, sometimes it is not. In these latter cases, we should be very wary of declining an unblock reason because of the reaction the block provoked. By their very nature, because they are often misunderstood as permanent blocks (understandably because sometimes they do end up being de facto permanent blocks), indefinite blocks are more likely to get people angry than definite blocks of a few days or a week. There is a countering argument that indefinite blocks can 'shock' people into acting better in future, but I think any block should be able to perform that function, especially when it is a first block. Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at this specific case, I do see that this editor (Joseph A. Spadaro) has been contributing for over a year, with a large number of edits (I do see the sandbox edits, but those count if they help produce viable content), and a previously clean block. I do see recent warnings and incivility (but also some things being called incivil that probably didn't rise to that level). I also see allegations of previous incivility, but no evidence provided. Given: "He has a well-deserved reputation for being difficult, which last night was shown to be appropriate. He has feigned civility before", it seems that a request for comment would have been better (and could still be viable), where Redrocket can provide the diffs he says he is prepared to provide. Some commentary on the quality of the contributions might also help. One final thing: I am concerned about the 'laundry list' nature of the block log: "Disruption: Harassing editors, incivility, abuse of process" - that is three separate reasons provided. LessHeard vanU should be prepared, upon request, to individually support each of those reasons, if only because Spadaro would also be expected to respond to each reason individually. Another problem with a 'laundry list' of reasons for a block is that sometimes, if one or more of the reasons is found to be weak, an impression can be given that a list of reasons is being given to bolster support for the block. In general, especially in the case of a first block, it is best to pick the most severe reason, block for that, and explain the rest on the talk page. The aim is to reform the editor, not provide as many reasons as possible in the block log for maintaining an indefinite block. Also, in general, a long list of reasons in a block log makes the review process more difficult. Better to explain one reason clearly, than three tersely. I'm going to raise some of the general points at WT:BLOCK. Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • See here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To comment here since I was mentioned above, I'm not going to provide any diffs. I've had a discussion with LessHeard vanU and I obviously disagree here, but I'll respect the judgement of the admins who've made the decision. As I said above, I'm just going to forget about the issue. I wish you guys well in turning him into a civil, productive editor, but I've spent too much time on this user as it is. Redrocket (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic comment

Greetings, just came to tell you, I came across your page from following Joseph A. Spadaro, where we met on Talk:List of the verified oldest people, and I have to say, I found a quote on your page incredibly funny!! And added it to a page on mine. That's all, heh. Neal (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC).

Message

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

The User:Hanvanloon case

FYI: Update to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hanvanloon DanielPenfield (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC) --

Responded there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: the kids' program vandal you popped today (for Majorclanger)

I am fairly certain that the individual in question (69.203.66.82)is a sock of GSNguy. I will be reporting him as such to WP:SSP. He geolocates to the same area, and his MO is the same (subtle date vandalism). The only thing this IP hasn't done that his (probable) former incarnations have, is trying to change my password and that of User:Mrschimpf--he doesn't like us because we keep getting his socks banned. Any ideas you have as to how we can get this guy out of WP's collective hair would be much, much appreciated. Gladys J Cortez 23:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of Virtual Console games (North America)#A_gentle_reminder

See my comments. Reply to my talkpage if you want to speak to me. By the way, I hope you had a good break, thank you. Versus22 (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

what is the problem about picture??

what is the problem about picture??--Qwl (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Denial of AG you locked the article. please write reason. someone say this false information. that pictures are WP:Verifiability WP:No original research. i try to make WP:Neutral point of view. plesae explain your reasons? how you accept false information?--Qwl (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

i cant see an edit war. and i cant see a note about i must talk at the top of the page! someone say this is false. i wrote note to talk page. that user doesnt talk. user say false. but dont have any reason or something like that about WP:Verifiability WP:No original research. according to user pictures are false. i think pictures are true and WP:Verifiability WP:No original research. according to Wikipedia rules: they are WP:Verifiability WP:No original researchand we must write deniers arguments. you must see NPOV.

sample: if said US president is not Bush, this is false. will you lock the article? or will you want source that WP:Verifiability WP:No original research. --Qwl (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Also see WP:CCC

Consensus Can change

Page won't be edited

Hi there, I'd spoken to you a while ago about a page I was working on. Unfortunately, the artist doesn't want any more time spent on editing the page so I won't be able to make any changes... I'm quite disappointed myself because I don't think the post is that useful but there's not much I can do. Thanks for your help nonetheless. You can respond here if you'd like Maria215 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That is disappointing. As you may be aware, the artists page is liable to be edited by any third party. I have it on my Watchlist, so I will ensure that any added content is verifiable and otherwise encyclopedic. If you are able to edit Wikipedia - not necessarily the artists page - in your own time you are of course welcome to do so. Thanks for your contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember having looked at this page a while ago, and thinking I might be able to do something with it; I'll take another look some time in the next week, and discuss with both of you. Risker (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

School blocks

Hi LessHeard vanU, I presume I was correct in posting the school's request to be blocked for a period of time in ARV. Thanks for the quick response! Can you put up the "this IP is a school IP" message on their talk page as well as I find that is sometimes handy when doing anti-vandal work. Cheers! --Samtheboy ^(t/c) 21:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tool2Die4

Hi - I have unblocked this user per his unblock request. I initially turned it down as looking too suspicious, but a private checkuser did tally with his story. Though I'm not entirely sure about it, I am prepared to give him a chance given his previous good record - though I'll keep an eye out! Please feel free to re-block if you're not as gullible convinced as me though :) Black Kite 23:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Serial vandalism

Regarding this edit. The logical extension of your edit summary is that admins do not care about serial vandals who vandalise every six weeks or so. If that is the position of Wikipedia, it should change. Viewfinder (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:re User talk:130.63.210.55

OK...This bugged me more and more as I drove home from work, and I'd like to make sure you followed the entire sequence of events.

• 130.63.210.56 (talk · contribs) vandalizes 3 articles, (Scientific management, Best Buy, and Adam Smith), being reverted and warned between each by Thisisborin9 (talk · contribs), which left them at a level 3 vandalism warning.
• 130.63.210.55 (talk · contribs) appears 6 minutes later to vandalize Best Buy by calling Thisisborin9, who had just reverted and warned an IP only 1 number off, gay.
• I revert this, and looking at the page history, I'm fairly certain that this is either the same person, or a classmate sitting next to them in a computer room somewhere who's been watching the whole thing. In my mind, this "new" IP doesn't deserve to start off with a level 1 vandalism warning. They're obviously related, and should be at a final warning now. Since the previous warnings are on a different talk page, I use vandal4im and link to the other talk page for clarity. They then vandalize my page.
• I report them, again leaving a link to the other talk page, and get a message implying I'm too sensitive about being called gay?

When I wrote the original reply on my talk page, I had assumed you had followed all of that. As I drove home, I thought that maybe you missed the links, because otherwise I don't see what reason you felt I needed a note. I don't see how my reaction would have, or should have, been different no matter what words they were using to vandalize. I didn't reference their specific comments at all, and used only rollback and templated warnings. Just got the new message bar when I previewed this...and your comment does make me think that you were missing half of this story. In any case, I'm gonna go grab some food. Have a good one. --Onorem♠Dil 21:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Miss half the story...? Yeah, probably, on a good day..! Like I said, some things hit my personal buttons harder than others - and vandalism + gay is one of them. I apologised on your talkpage and I apologise here. nb. Eat slowly when peeved, it is better for the digestion. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Smiling!

[3] If only there was a wiki-award for best edit summary of the day! Let's face it though, for some people it isn't the speed of typing that is the problem, it's their haste in hitting the "save page" button. Risker (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Whaddya mean, stalking? I just keep forgetting to uncheck the "watch this page" box, and also to clean out my watchlist... I know, what a lazy git. It does, however, result in unexpected moments of amusement, as when I got to watch someone running around deleting troll warnings this morning. Risker (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

hello

when you talk, i listen. you are a well respected person unlike some admins because you sometimes want to listen to the little guy.

I am shocked when I got the message....

As I'm sure you know, the user who insisted on the police union edit was banned because he was abusing Wikipedia with multiple sock puppets. As he has continued to do - but don't worry, he will be stopped again. Tvoz |talk 13:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Tvoz is accusing me of being a sock and threatening to ban me. Do you know what banning is? It is like being murdered. Since I am from a small village in India, some admin will block out the whole village. I do not want to be banned because Tvoz doesn't like my edits.

Please reconsider and ask Tvoz to behave and do not say I am the harasser. Tvoz is the harrasser. I just modified my comments on AN after people said it was not a legal threat but just a threat.

Look again...Tvoz is threatening me. Please ask Tvoz to stop. I am KVS. 122.164.121.238 (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)