User talk:LessHeard vanU

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you leave a message here this editor will possibly reply on your talkpage, or here, or on the talkpage of an article concerned, or somewhere else, or any combination of the above. It is probably best for you to suggest the preferred arena for a response... LessHeard vanU 00:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have come to this page to complain about my language in my edit summaries, most likely involving editing in the name of the area and/or nation in articles, then I would like to apologise here, now for any offense caused..... LHvU

Caveat Should I receive information by private means I shall consider that the sender has waived any claim of copyright or privacy on their part of the message and has obtained such permission on the part of any third parties whose post(s) form part of the message. By communicating with me outside of Wikipedia spaces you are giving me permission to disseminate the content of any message in the manner of my choosing, and you hold yourself liable for any violation of law, Wikipedia policies, service providers Terms of Service, and other consequence of my making public of such information. You may request privacy, and I may honour such a request, but I am not bound by it. Mark Slater(LessHeard vanU 00:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

Archives

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

Contents 1 Regarding User:Abtract 2 Arbitration 3 Say it ain't so 4 templating users 5 This edit summary 6 Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mykungfu (6th) 7 New Project 8 my emails to users 9 re User:152.157.78.104 reported to AIV 10 Out of curiosity... 11 User:Smsarmad 12 FYI 13 user Unclerufis1 14 AWB Backlog 15 Reblock 16 ??? 17 Pakistan related artlices 18 Talk:Stefan_Banach is repeatedly archived to hide the arguments opposing the chauvinistic views 19 [6] 20 Just to say hai 21 WBOSITG's RfA 22 Re: Elonka's oppose reasons 23 My RfA 24 I risk mudslinging at me 25 DS block 26 RFA Thanks 27 RfA thank-spam 28 Explain 29 RfA thanks! 30 Peace 31 User:Abtract 32 Andreasegde 33 Thank you! 34 RFA 35 Vladimir Putin 36 my RfA - Ta! 37 ANI 38 JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case 39 Reply 40 re Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Eurovisionman 41 Test edits or Vandal account :) 42 Conflict on The Cure page 43 A decent protest against an unjustified blocking 44 Suspected sock puppet 45 Mantanmoreland protections 46 User:Zackkelly 47 Congratulations! 48 Vandalism at Powers and abilities of the Hulk 49 User talk:DemolitionMan 50 Funniest thing I've read all day 51 All My Goodness 52 Arb log 53 Checkuser Xasha=Molodopodo 54 Regarding User:Redsox502 55 Request 56 Why did you undo my revision on "The Beatles?" 57 Thanks 58 User:Zosimo Montez 59 Better late than never! 59.1 Thank you for your support 60 My RfA 61 Dispute within Opposition to trade unions article 62 New admin tool? 63 My Edits on User talk:Ultraviolet scissor flame

[edit] Regarding User:Abtract

Appears he has violated the 3RR on Bleach, but I'm not sure if the first edit applies. And the editor has been making personal attacks and removing warnings in bad faith, see these removals. Result? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you are "not sure if the first edit applies" indicates how your vindictive desire to see me blocked far exceeds your limited knowledge of wp rule. Abtract (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Diffs of personal attacks, [2] and [3]. Note that the user is also warring on Bleach (manga), but I have begun a discussion here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that you say I am warring but it never occurs to you that so are you and you were the first to revert on both pages ... a particularly insensitive action unless you want to stir it up again ... plus the fact that you continue to stalk me. Abtract (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

What is with you and accusations? How is watchlist hunting considered stalking? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And yet another attack. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Could you please tell the user to stop attacking me and calling me a "stalker"? That's all I ask. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 13:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Collectonian has spread a few ideas to the users Redrocket and Sephiroth BCR. Were you aware? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Thanks for your interest. I am willing for you to arbitrate (provided your are not a Manchester Uniter fan). I will not be posting again at Bleach etc so that should not delay matters. Over to you but in your own time. Abtract (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Using the time while you watch Chelsea beat Liverpool to good advantage, I would like to make Sess an offer to avoid arbitration and pave the way for a golden future. "Let's forget all that has gone before and act as though we were the best of friends in the future. So, everything that happened and was said previously is in the past; we start afresh with assistance and cooperation in mind; we never revert each other; we don't change a format designed by the other without really good reason; we don't look at each other's contribution list; we don't make personal comments about each other and we work on the premise that the other is acting absolutely in good faith. I act towards you as I would want you to treat me and vice versa. I am sure you want the best for wp, as do I so let us use all our energy on that and not waste it on each other." :) Abtract (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make up for your continued personal attacks. Many times you have "apologized", yet I do not see the slightest change in your behaviour. If anything, you should be blocked for attacking others after receiving a final warning, but that's just me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to make up for my failings or indeed for yours. I was trying to create a pleasant and workable environment for the future. Abtract (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

So do we take it that Sees has, yet again, rebuffed my peace advance and your suggestion of arbitration? Abtract (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Say it ain't so

As someone who, in my opinion, is one of the more sensible adminstrators, I'm rather shocked that you support more erosion of the encyclopedia in favor of the ill-conceived BLP panic. Well, it doesn't change my overall impression, which is that you are an exceptional administrator! I think we need more rational, thoughtful persons like yourself, not less. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Erosion is a natural process, whereas corrosion is frequently a by product of an imperfect process... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] templating users

There is no ban on templating users because they have been here a long time.

They still don't know how to behave. They were wiping out an article when the proper way was to discuss and AFD. After much fighting, they've stopped. AFD discussion I can live with (even if it is deleted in the end, which I oppose). Breaking the rules and using the excuse "I am experienced user) is no excuse.

The Malia Obama article is actually better than tons of trivial articles like FC and bands. Watchingobama (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that Tvoz is a very prominent Wikipedia editor, having been mentioned in numerous articles about Wikipedia election-related articles. Therefore, your accusations towards her are unwarranted and uncalled for, and you should do more to assume good faith. Grsz^talk 21:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This edit summary

I'm trying to figure out exactly what my inclusion there meant. Do you suspect me of something? Or just pointing out that I also think that White Cat is a part of the problem?Kww (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mykungfu (6th)

Thanks for your response and clarification. Would you then take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mykungfu (6th)? This guy is clearly using several socks & IPs to circumvent a ban.-RoBoTam^ice 03:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I shall let this slide. I am willing to provide assistance, but don't think I should be relied upon to be available at any particular time or on any particular subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] my emails to users

I would like to assure you that I in no way solicited my unblock. I was in communications with all of the users you gave diffs too - and some others - but the focus of the email dialogue was on an AC appeal, which was sent to the AC. You also seem to be unaware of some other block logs; [4] [5]. Please note that I currently feel very constrained in my ability to participate in these discussions and certainly do not wish to seem to be in conflict with the terms of Ryan's unblock. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 08:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but there is sufficient references to outside communications for White Cat to draw a conclusion that does not depend on a bad faith interpretation; and that is the point I was trying to make to Ryan. As for the Cool Cat block log - it is pretty historical, and the current account is pretty exemplary. If you can match that in your new access to WP then it will be to the good. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Understood. I'm quite sure that there is lots of off-wiki communications and I've generally taken a dim view of it; i.e. I expect that there's a lot of quiet planning occurring. The CAMERA issue is only one high profile example. I have almost no experience with off-wiki communications; I typically didn't have email enabled on accounts, indeed, I didn't on this account until I was asked to. This, I think, has not worked to my advantage in the past because others, many others, use off wiki-communications extensively. This resulted in my having relatively few folks who understood where I was coming from when issues arose. Anyway, pleased to meet you, my talk page is open, as is email. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 09:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re User:152.157.78.104 reported to AIV

Yes, I'm sure I have the right user. There was vandalism on J. J. that wasn't caught. I reverted it just today. And anyway, see their contributions. All (or most, I forget) are unconstructivve. If you need to respond, do so on my talk page. Thanks. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 19:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Out of curiosity...

Why was 207.28.98.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) blocked today for edits made over a week ago? I don't see any indication that he was likely to return today. —C.Fred (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably because I checked the time of the last warning today against the time of the next edits... without checking the date. I had a quick look at the deleted contribs to see if I could fib my way out - but the one edit was yesterday a year ago anyway! In truth, I made a mistake. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Smsarmad

Hi. I read your comment on the noticeboard. The problem is not content dispute. The articles always indicated that the people in question are Shi'a Muslims, until a few weeks ago, an anon changed this in many articles and removed the sources. Every time someone would revert these edits, User:Smsarmad would change it back. First, he argued that the infobox should indicate the religion and not the denomination. When I told him that every other infobox showed the denomination, he decided to switch it from Shi'a Islam to Sunni Islam without adding reliable sources of his own, even though the Bhutto family, in particular, is a known Shi'a family in Pakistan just as the Kennedy family is a known Roman Catholic family, or the Rothschild's a known Jewish family, meaning that its religious affiliation is not subject to debate and any edit changing the denomination would be pure vandalism, mixed with religious fanaticism. I've warned him before, so there is no use to warn him again and there is nothing else to discuss. I think the proper action would be to block him, at least temporarily, because of his intentionally disruptive editing. LahoreKid (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, almost every editor on the Pakistan WikiProject is a Sunni Muslim and thus unable to be neutral on this particular subject, which is very, very sensitive in Pakistan. User:Smsarmad, who has been causing the disruption, should be blocked because he just won't cease. LahoreKid (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you, at least, protect the articles? LahoreKid (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Hey LessHeard. An FYI for you. A genre trolling IP that you laid a 1 week block onto (68.195.3.185 (talk · contribs)) is back from his one week block. This IP has 6 blocks so far for genre trolling and, in some cases, outright vandalism. Your 1 week block is up and guess what? The IP is right back at his old habits again. Lots of genre swapping and not one bit of talk page discussion in sight. Just thought you'd be interested. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] user Unclerufis1

Can you please look at this users contributions and block for abuse of editing privilages? Has added random wrong rubbish to inparticular articles on Georgia Christopher140691 (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it I will report anything that I see from the user that is vandalism as I have them in my watchlist. Christopher140691 (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AWB Backlog

hi there I wondered if you could look at the AWB approval page as there is a backlog and wondered if you could clear it as there are about 6 users awaiting approval and hasnt been looked at since 1st May 2008 many thanks Christopher140691 (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Can you pass it on for me to someone who might know? I have left a message on the admins noticeboard but didnt get a reply. So I thought seen as you were an admin you might have a clue. Sorry for disturbing you. Christopher140691 (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reblock

Might as well do User talk:Colourmoved as an obvious sock of User talk:Toothahead —Alex.Muller 15:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  ???

Sorry, where are my unconstructive edits? --Mojska 666 – Leave your message here 12:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan related artlices

Thanks for your contribution in Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics, Can you please also look at current discussion in Category talk:Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan. Thanks Misaq Rabab (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Stefan_Banach is repeatedly archived to hide the arguments opposing the chauvinistic views

There is an on-going systematic effort by User:Nihil_novi and few other extreme nationalist characters to archive the content of the discussion page Talk:Stefan_Banach.

The discussion on this page contains many arguments and references on Ukrainian roots of Stefan Banach and on his contributions to Ukrainian mathematics.

Polish chauvinists attempted to initiate the discussion of the censorship purge of the article on Banach. To create a semblance of a "vote" supporting their censorship, User:Nihil_novi attempt to hide into the archive the discussions of the Banach Ukrainian roots and his contributions to Ukrainian mathematics.

The section Stefan Banach#Contributions to Ukrainian mathematics contains important and non-redundant facts on Banach's contributions to Ukrainian science and Ukrainian mathematics in particular. There are substantial plans to continue the work on expanding this particular section, as well as other sections of Stefan_Banach.

The on-going attempts of Polish extreme nationalist characters to impede the establishment of NPOV on Banach must be stopped! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] [6]

Regarding what you wrote, i can only suspect that you hadn't read repost in my Note and below. Alternatively, i would consider your judgement one-sided and lacking impartiality.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Your suspicions and considerations are your own, as are my judgement and opinion mine. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just to say hai

[edit] WBOSITG's RfA

[edit] Re: Elonka's oppose reasons

(copied over from my talk page:) Hi, and thanks for this. I know it's good advice. I simply thought it might be useful to reflect on the more general concerns that Elonka raises, that I think other people share: I don't think she's the only person who believes that FAC is an intimidating process. Yes, there are probably better times and places to go over these issues, but I didn't want to ignore them completely, because they concern me also. This is not to win her (or anyone else's) support at RfA. I hope that this is not "pressing the issues" or a sign of any anxiety; rather, an acknowledgement of what I see as real and understandable frustration on her part. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi LessHeard vanU, I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 23:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I risk mudslinging at me

About your comment about Southern Texas, I risk the wrath of those opposed to his edits in political articles.

Since you mentioned that Southern Texas has good edits, I have proposed on ANI that Southern Texas receive a serious talk (I am willing to do it) and that he be unblocked after a week, not infinite as it now is.

We are here to build the encyclopedia so if someone is mentally ill and has multiple personalities, the constructive personality among them should be allowed to edit and help WP.

I say these things with great danger because there are those who will try to say that I am Southern Texas. I am not. I wish to prove it to you by sending you proof of my identity. Note that I mentioned the identity part a while ago (in connection with a research project that I am doing) so proving my identity has nothing to do with Southern Texas. JerryVanF (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DS block

Hi LessHeard, on the block of David Shankbone - had you noticed that the target of the word (which was, in context "what supporting people like TFA makes you ****|look like", with stars not because I'm afraid to say it but because you didn't ;) ) has a couple of different times said it didn't bother her, and has continued to post to his page about the underlying problems? I'm not sure a week block was really called for, even though its a word that offends many people and also even though he was planning on a wikibreak. Avruch ^T 20:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Avruch; Wikipedians' cultural sensibilities vary widely--while "cunt" is universally slang and impolite, it doesn't automatically provoke horrified gasps and bouts of hand wringing among all our editors. Merkinsmum was far more concerned with David's so-called "outing" rampage than a bit of salty language concealed behind a wiklink. Also take note that David desisted after Alison threatened to block him--making your block utterly unnecessary. Finally, unless you plan on fully protecting his talk page, blocking him will not prevent Shankbone from cursing up a storm in his own user-space. You should rethink your decision.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am in question of the block of David that came 19 hours from the last action, and its reason. An active discussion is ongoing at this talk page, and your comments is requested. seicer | talk | contribs 01:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the assessment that the block might be a bit excessive. As his behavior desisted after the warning by Alison, I think the block, though well-intentioned, might have been a case of punishing a person for behavior after the behavior has stopped. Since blocking is to protect the Project, I am unsure how it needs to be protected from a behavior that no longer threatens or violates the rules. As the c-word is used quite often in the UK (towards both men and women), it might be less sexist than is normally interpreted by an American audience. Granted, it doesn't excuse the behavior, but other people who drop worse insults get less block time and often just warnings. A block of a week seems pretty excessiove, especially when we consider how productive DS is for the Project. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Close this here; DS is unblocked, further comment is at DS's talkpage and the ANI thread - where I will comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for letting me know. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I’m sorry to have taken you by surprise; sometimes I forget people can’t see me through the screen. Probably just as well, you’d notice that I’ve neglected to brush my hair since 7 a.m., and you can’t see the mess of paperwork on the desk either. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for the Edit Summary of the Day![7] That odd sputtering sound you heard was the tea going up my nose when I read it. Risker (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thank-spam

BTW, regarding the edit summaries - my mainpage summaries have always been very close to 100%. The red you may have seen in my edit summary table is strictly due to edits in my sandbox, where I don't always bother to leave a summary (not much point, since I'm the only one who reads that page). Just thought I'd clear that up :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explain

"re block template placed on User talk:74.79.50.254

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Impersonating an administrator and/or using a template inappropriately are violation of the principles of Wikipedia.

I also note the accusation leveled in the section above. I therefore also further warn you in respect of your disruptive recent actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)"

What is that about? Look at his talk page, I placed a block template after his LAST WARNING. I think I acted appropriately...

Perhaps a misunderstanding?

[edit] RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peace

Thanks for saying something pleasant about me on AN/I. I hope this means that our previous friction has been dissipated and forgiven and that we are now on good terms. This is my desire. Thank you for moving on from the whole (past) episode in the spirit in which you did. I have seen you act as a good and conscientious admin since then and trust your abilities. Sincerely, –Mattisse (Talk) 20:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Abtract

A second request for comment has been filed for User:Abtract at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract. As someone listed as having attempted to aid in the situation, and whom he agrees helped him, I wanted to make you aware of the RfC in case you wished to make any comments regarding it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Andreasegde

His achievements? They're worthless if he misbehaves so much. Please block this user or I am leaving Wikipedia out of harassment. I can't tolerate his attacks anymore. Ultra! 16:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I thank you, LessHeard vanU, for pointing this out. I find it humourous (and very interesting) for a certain editor to put down my contributions in a such a way: "worthless if he misbehaves so much". That made me laugh.

This user is very clever. He is like the school bully, who is the ultimate macho, but when someone gives him one on the nose in retalition, he goes crying to the Headmaster: "Please block this user or I am leaving Wikipedia out of harassment". Oh, how clever...

I wil not troll through edits and give links, because all one has to do is look at the Macca page to see the trend. He cut Macca's article to pieces because he said it was needed (which forced 'Vera, Chuck and Dave' to leave the project) and then added stuff about McCartney's supposed death, and a photo of a Macca impersonator. I deleted it, and he reverted it. (Tvoz agreed with my deletion, BTW).

This person is a vandal, but he's really good. Block me if I am wrong.--andreasegde (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for alerting me to this LVTY. I've dealt with pur fairweather friend in the past and been through much the same schtik. It is either unfortunate (or hilarious: I can't decide) that you are not an admin and, as such cannot block Edge; meaning if Ultra is a man of his word he will have to leave wikipedia out of harassment --Crestville (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I suck at anachronyms :)--Crestville (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Less heard is an admin, Cresty, and I quiver in my socks at the thought of it. :) The funny thing is, I said I was on a break so I wouldn't get involved in accusations and tit-for-tatting. I'm doing something wrong here, methinks. :)--andreasegde (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Less, but you get the first:

OK, I've had enough of this. Will someone PLEASE tell this user (Ultraviolet scissor flame) to stop? He has had his bit of fun with Paul McCartney, but he needs to be told that this can not go on. Just look at what he is doing now... I truly believe that he has a personal bias against McCartney, and pretends to be a "newbie", but as anyone can see, he is not. This message will posted on various pages. --andreasegde (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Mark,

Thank you so much for your quick action in reply to my notice on User:Eurovisionman. I will also follow your advice to use appropriate headers should I ever (and I hope I won't) have to bother the Administrators' Noticeboard.

Kind regards,

PrinceGloria (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

And now he's back as an anon URL! How did I know... :( PrinceGloria (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see edit histories and talk pages for Isis Gee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and For Life (Isis Gee song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for what I find rather blatant sockpuppetry. Do I need to write some lenghty sockpuppetting suspicion report or can the issue be resolved in a quicker way? Oh, please see the edit histories of "new" users that have appeared in the articles' talk pages to see for what I find evidence or at least strong clues. Excuse me for bothering you, but you already know the issue... PrinceGloria (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark, thank you for your kind words - I do not feel I deserve any kind of congratulations or thanks, I guess both you and the other admins involved are entitled to another big Thank You from the humble myself for taking my desperate, and rather lousy, attempts at fending off Eurovisionman seriously and taking the issue further. PrinceGloria (talk) 00:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Thanks for the kind words and the advice on my talkpage. The extra buttons seem bewildering and a bit scary, so you can be sure I won't be swinging to hard. I think I would just hit myself! --Slp1 (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vladimir Putin

Here is a follow up to an incident you reviewed about 10 days ago: Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Muscovite99_reported_by_Kulikovsky. Kulikovsky (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of these users have been battling over the introduction to the Vladimir Putin article for nearly six months. Their assertions and criticisms are all detailed ad nauseum in the later segments of text, and various editors will attempt to shorten the intro down from being several paragraphs long, only to find it reverted or re-lengthened by one or the other a short time later. Something needs to be done, but I wouldn't say a unilateral banning of one user over the other is going to turn the trick. I worry that a full-protect is the only way to bring that one under control. Ender78 (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I had to respectfully disagree with the analysis of Ender78. My comments can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Vladimir_Putin.2C_editors_Muscovite99_and_Kulikovsky. Also, Ender78 made a factual mistake. Since 1 Jan till 30 Apr, inclusive, I made only 3 edits in the article. In December I made more, like a dozen, perhaps, but those had nothing to do with introduction. Also, I believe the only thing I re-added in May was some economical data, which AFAIR only two editors explicitly wanted to remove: Muscovite99 and Biophys. I doubt very much their motive was to shorten the intro. They both seem to be allergic to any positive info about Putin. More importantly that economy growth is what mainstream media presents as Putin's main achievements. If not that, I personally would not do it. To me it seems oil prices helped Russian economy more than Putin policies, but that is my personal opinion and I keep it out of the article. Kulikovsky (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that it seems that the edit war over Putin is mostly ideological on the part of Muscovite, but I was not willing to surf through hundreds of diffs to track where that became a problem. The only thing I noted was that there is an extremely high correlation of those two users battling each other since December. In any event, it appears that the controversy has died down, for now. Kulikovsky, I'd put myself in the same category you're asserting for yourself, but that Putin article is getting seriously out of control even beyond the introductory paragraphs. Personally, I tend to use the template established by US President biographies as a guideline for how to treat other world leaders, and by that standard the Putin article is getting seriously bloated and unfairly burdened by the bias of all given sides. Let's try to get that article streamlined down into a good wiki article that doesn't overlook anything good or bad about the guy, eh? Cheers. Ender78 (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. With a reservation about "an extremely high correlation", of course :-) Cheers! Kulikovsky (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Muscovite99 is not the only user engaged in edit-warring and non-consensual content removal. Hereby I request that you clarify (on appropriate talk pages, such as Talk:Vladimir Putin and User talk:Muscovite99) whether your warning regarding non-consensual content removal is applicable to other editors, or only Muscovite99 is singled out for that purpose. He got two blocks from you, so I think it is fair enough to ask now. Colchicum (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

While I have no doubt LessHeard vanU will reply to this, I would like to make a few points nevertheless. It is true, Muscovite99 was not the only editor deviating from WP guidelines while working on the article. But there is a question of degree. He was a champion labeling other editors changes as "vandalism". I do not think there was any other editor working on the article who would be was as rude as him. I do not think there was any other editor who received as many warnings. I do not think there was any other editor who showed as little respect to those warnings. Should we be surprised that when he got a very serious and specific warning he ignored it as well? He was warned in very direct language that if he does X, he gets blocked. Yet he did X.

I would humbly suggest you asking yourself if you liked edits he did.

Also, your statement that "[h]e got two blocks from" LessHeard vanU seems to be mistaken. I know of only one. If that is the case, I think your apologies would be entirely appropriate. Just my 2c. Please feel free to make comments related to me and not related to LessHeard vanU on my talk page. Best! Kulikovsky (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I didn't mean anybody specifically, so this is certainly more related to LessHeard vanU than to you. Large-scale edit-warring and content removal are obvious from the history of the article. As there is nothing similar to consensus on the talk page, every case of content removal should be considered non-consensual, and if it is blockable, much more blocks should have been issued. Let me remind you that Muscovite99 has been blocked for non-consensual content removal, not for incivility. Colchicum (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I performed the one block, but no apology is needed.

My perspective on this matter is as follows, I acted on the basis of an earlier report to WP:AN regarding a particular individual, and have acted in regard to that particular individual. I was not asked, and did not, look into the overall situation regarding the Putin article or any edit warring by other parties. While it is often the case that it takes two parties to make an edit war my very brief review of the actions of one individual showed edit warring against two or more editors. This made me suspect that the consensus was with the content remaining, and this suspicion was strengthened by the fact the offending editor was not using talk pages or even appropriate edit summaries (over than "vandalism" involving removing text with inline citations, etc.), and was performing exactly the same edits that had got them previously blocked. Also to be taken into account was the fact that I had already warned the editor not to perform these edits, from when I originally reviewed the matter.

If there is a dispute about content, discuss it on the talkpage or open a RfC. If there is edit warring, make a report to WP:3RR. If there are one or more individuals who are more zealous than most in edit warring take it to WP:AIV or one of the admin noticeboards. In this case the last option was taken, and I acted upon it. This does not, of course, disallow any of these options being exercised in respect of different parties or points.

Admins don't "do" content disputes, we enforce WP policy when violations are brought to our attention. We, as part of the community, trust the community to act to resolve any editing issues. It is the community that is both judge and prosecutor (and defence) primarily when it comes to disputes where admins take on the extra role of jailor/executioner when found necessary. Obviously, it doesn't always work like that - sometimes an admin cannot be found to enact the will of the community, and more rarely an admin will legitimately act outside of the communities decisions - but that is the basis of the role.

I hope this explains both my actions, and inactions, in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] my RfA - Ta!

[edit] ANI

Thanks, but this was not quite what I was looking for. It would be good to get your opinion, and that of others, on whether protection was appropriate. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case

Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Thanks for the message. Hopefully it is only a bored student, or security guard / cleaner during the Bank Holiday Weekend that is doing the vandalism. With a bit of luck the University IT staff will see the warnings and take action themselves. Richard Harvey (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Eurovisionman

Don't really know which should be the primary, but User:Eurovisionman seems to be the lead character in the edit war (and the first to get blocked) and the one I named the case after. Either way, I guess. Don't actually remember what the policy is anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh thank god. The amount of protests, combined with the number of socks, was making me doubt it myself. I'm glad that's taken care of. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Test edits or Vandal account :)

Hi , thanks for replying to my report. I guess you are right when you say they look like test edits :) Still, I thought that a recently opened acount with only vandalism edits to its name was classified a vandalism-only account and therefore subject to immediate blocking. I would be grateful if you could shed some light on this, thanks. FelisLeo^Talk! 20:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict on The Cure page

Hello, I'm the user, Carliertwo. I posted this contribution[8] in january on The Cure page. That contribution has been accepted for months by everyone til 2 weeks ago [9] when the user Wesleydoods (talk) claimed this statement was not relevant anymore. Since, Wesley has been constantly forced his way by withdrawing it again and again. His arguement is this statement was "not necessary". It's all the contrary. In fact, this statement of Robert Smith is relevant 'cse it reveals why Smith had changed of musical style after 1979. It's the only time that Smith stated it in that particular way, he weighs his words plus, this is what he thinks of it in 2003, 24 years after it happened. Smith clearly stated here what was the impetus that provoked the change of musical change. Other point, I'd like to underline that User wesleyDodds seems to be partial as he posted all the statements from Apter, pg. book (see the "references" in the Cure'article), an instance of the statement he put [10]. Wesley also seems to deny that next to "Welcome to Wikipedia", there's this sentence on the front page "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". So, I'd like that my contribution, accepted by anyone since january stays as it is. I tried to convince that user by many posts but he refused accepting it. Now, I contact you as an administrator to help us. Carliertwo (talk). 14:48, 28 may 2008

[edit] A decent protest against an unjustified blocking

You have initiated a block on my account yesterday following a complaint from a notorious user who is using the DHCP capabilities of the Caltech network to remove what he calls BS from the pages he does not like - of course in the name of the science. Did you actually take a look what he removed from Greer's page or sided with him as soon as you read his arguments. Of course if you know each other already then I don't have any chance to push my agenda. He removed 3 UNRELATED sections(1: alleged reversed engineered ufo technology in possession of the government 2: Greer's new Orion Project 3: A note that Randy was unable to debunk the written statements of Greer's military and government witnesses). As for the fact watch the following video with the testimonies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk Could you please comment on this? I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A part of this alleged secrecy/suppression is to complicate the surfacing of "fully independent" third party confirmations. However to counterbalance this problem Greer presented government and military witnesses who held top security clearances and were in highly respected positions(John Callahan -> former FAA Head of Accidents & Investigations). How can you dismiss such a testimony as fake or lie? The mainstream media(CNN)also reported this event and it was watched by millions of people on the Internet. We are moving on a fine line here between confirmed and unconfirmed, aren't we?I-netfreedOm (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record: I haven't used an other user name for the changes that were made recently on Greer's page. I'm trying to abide by the rules of Wikipedia. My next question to you is about the user with whom I disagree with on the discussed subjects. He states that he intentionally did not create a user account(see my talk with him) so that he can delete content freely in Wikipedia without the burden of having discussions and consensus on disputed subjects. Is this really the way to go and if so - by tolerating it - isn't Wikipedia discourages people to have a real account through which the "game" can be played fairly?I-netfreedOm (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not created an account so that I do not have to deal with people such as Greer's apologist outside of Wikipedia. I lack patience in this regard. Sorry if this is bothering you. 131.215.64.195 (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

In answer to you both, WP allows "anonymous" editing by editors via ip accounts. The reason given by 131.215.64.195 is regarded as a perfectly valid reason for not creating an account, although there is no need to give a reason. The benefits of having a named account are many, but do not effect the ability to edit the encyclopedia. Restricting editing to only those who choose to open accounts does not seem to be something that will happen in the near future, so we just have to proceed as we are. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sock puppet

I suspect that User:Trysty is a sock puppet of User:Muscovite99 who is currently blocked. Activity spikes of Trysty correlate well with two last blocks of Muscovite99. Trysty's articles of interest are about the same; and he inserts the same type of content as Muscovite99. Please let me know if I should report my suspicions somewhere else. Thank you. Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you are looking for WP:SSP. I haven't created a report there, so I cannot help you. If you are also unable to create a report I suggest you copy the above message to WP:ANI, commenting on your difficulty, and see if a friendly (and tech minded) editor can help you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It is now confirmed that Muscovite99 used a sock puppet Trysty. This how he evaded two blocks. Regards, Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Mantanmoreland protections

Don't forget Securities fraud and add the template to its talk page, if you don't mind. It was being edited extensively by Bassettcat. When I get home I will scroll through the rest of his contribs and see if any other articles fit into the pattern. Thanks! Risker (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zackkelly

Thanks for the feedback. I don't believe in good faith with people who continue to vandalize after not only having been final warned, but previously blocked, but YMMV. Corvus cornix_talk 23:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

[edit] Vandalism at Powers and abilities of the Hulk

Can you undo the unconstructive edits of Jtrainor and CMJ147kitty? The sysop that had protected the page didn't notice the changes. In particular, the vandal Jtrainor had destroyed the #references section. Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have notified the administrator. (PS: You have watchlisted the page yes? Seems to get a lot of traffic, more bad than good.) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sesshomaru, you need to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and not accuse everyone reverting you of vandalism. Jtrainor (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:DemolitionMan

This offensive comment made by the user have been removed. A page protection may be needed to prevent further disruption. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Funniest thing I've read all day

I giggled. Thanks for being funny! Seraphim♥Whipp 21:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All My Goodness

Yes, I would say that banning is a little harsh here. :) Sorry, I was cleaning up the article when you deleted it. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arb log

I added your block of Xasha to the Digwuren logs. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser Xasha=Molodopodo

Can you ask to verify please? I'm watching this user and he presents the same behaviour and the same pattern with Moldopodo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.145.163.228 (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding User:Redsox502

Just got a question because I'm new to my Wiki account. What does it matter if I delete the messages on my userpage? And what does it mean that you are "blocking me"? Redsox502 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I've noticed that you're active, and I'd like to ask for a favor, if you have the time and inclination to humor me. Could you please take a screenshot of what you currently see on http://ro.wikipedia.org/ and upload it here under a temporary name? (I will make sure to delete it later on.) I don't even want to mention why I need this (canvassing concerns), but I need someone completely neutral to do it, as to avoid any possible accusations of... well, whatever, you know how it is. Should you choose not to, please decline explicitly. Thank you! --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thank you for responding. Now I see you're an European, RSVP should've been enough. :-) --Gutza ^{T T+} 21:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you undo my revision on "The Beatles?"

I know they had a different name before 1960, but they were still the same band. As far as I know, it still counts if the band has a different name.

Example: Wikipedia's article for Linkin Park. They have been active since 1996, but before 1999, they were named "Super Xero", "Xero", and "Hybrid Theory" during a period of frantic name-searching.

Example 2: Wikipedia's article for Maroon 5. They have been active since 1995, but before 2001, they were named "Kara's Flowers".

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am only trying to make Wikipedia a better place. Most of the other sites I have visited listed The Beatles as being active from 1957/58 to 1970/71.

Tezkag72 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a dispute about the Beatles founding at Talk:Paul McCartney; if you have anything to add to this debate please do! MartinSFSA (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

All is good. Toddst1 (talk) 10:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zosimo Montez

Since you were the closing admin, could you add all three of these to User:Pinoybandwagon's list of known sockpuppets? He just refuses to get it, and is incredibly inept in his work. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully I have done so... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Better late than never!

I just noticed after our convo at AIV that I hadn't thanked you for your participation in my RFA (I thought I had gotten to everyone). Anyhow - thanks...! You may be interested in checking out my in-depth RFA anaylsis where I touched on your comments and set out how I plan to improve and diversify my mainspace contribs. (Of course, all this vandal-whacking has really taken a toll on that!). I've also left some templated thank spam below. cheers, xenocidic (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, cool. I think it is great when somebody I did not !vote support for does get the nod - I never oppose or go neutral without agonising over it, and if enough of my colleagues are not convinced by my arguments for the candidate to succeed it means that my concerns are not that relevant = the new admin deserves the mop. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for contributing your two cents (or pence, for me) and for remaining level-headed while everyone else was userbox-obsessed. I'll be reapplying in 4-6 months after more time spent working on articles and so on, so i'll hopefully see you then :). Cheers again. Ironholds 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute within Opposition to trade unions article

Hi, I saw that you've been in contact with User:Larklight concerning an AIV he attempted to bring against me. As you pointed out to him, this is an edit dispute and not a vandalism issue. However, I don't see any chance of an amicable settlement, as the issue pits me against a group of ideologically motivated and like-minded editors, and not just on this one article, either.

As it turns out, I was the one who actually initiated the Rfc for the article in the first place, but it received almost no attention from neutral parties, save for one dissent from an editor who provided no reasoning. Given the lack of interest in that Rfc, and the almost impossibility for mutual consensus between myself and the editors in question, would a request for arbitration be in order? J.R. Hercules (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Presently, I am suggesting a relisting of the RfC - I didn't find it in a quick look on the RfC sub-page - to get more third party opinion. It is far too early to consider Arbitration, in my view. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New admin tool?

Wow, where do you sign up for the lightning bolts?[11] And are they only useful against Cornish editors? I was just down the road from you back in January, when I visited Plymouth. Will the lightning bolt work against Plymothians? Are you impressed that I know that term? :-) Risker (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Edits on User talk:Ultraviolet scissor flame

Acknowledged. I just realised that I've violated the very policy I was attempting to uphold. Thanks for telling me to keep in line. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 14:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)