User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Invitation to rejoin WikiProject The Beatles

Dear esteemed editor and former member of WikiProject The Beatles,

Debate over "policy" recently overheated, to the detriment of the WikiProject and Wikipedia. As part of the fallout, you resigned from the Project.

I now believe, thanks in part to your input, that the WikiProject doesn't need "policy", so I have tagged the page as historical and blanked it. I would like to invite you to:

  • Rejoin the project
  • Edit and trim the project page and template mercilessly, to reflect a new focus of working to produce featured content on The Beatles (or "the Beatles", it's your choice)
  • Help bring the next newsletter up to date and get it released.

It's your Project, please consider taking it back and shaping it into the Project you want it to be.

If it turns out that people aren't interested in rejoining and refocussing the Project I'm perfectly happy with that, and will resign myself and suggest tagging the Project as inactive. My role has always been primarily organisational, and if I don't have the support of good editors like yourself it's totally pointless carrying on. Lar and I started the Project because we felt one were needed, it is not and has never been a vanity exercise and we both have other things we could be doing.

PS: Mine's a London Pride. --kingboyk 12:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, I'm here

Yes, I am watching. Less often than before, certainly, but I check in twice a day or so and I have most of the relevant pages on my watchlist. I'll go do some reading. John Cardinal 03:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks a lot for your comments and the barnstar

I replied on my user talk as well, but I wanted to make sure you got my thanks. It does encourage me that some people are paying attention to the back and forth and maybe getting something out of it. I hope we run into each other again on this strange wiki world sometime. Take care and thank you, again. hombre de haha 05:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dancing peanut butter jelly bean thingie

Image:PeanutButterJellyStar.gif

For absolutely no reason at all, I, Kingboyk, hereby award you with a Dancing peanut butter jelly bean thingie. Enjoy! --kingboyk 18:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


<its getting in the way of messages... pesky peanut!>

[edit] Universal Life Chruch & the Beatles

The citation is on the list itself. I will add to the articles. --GreenJoe 21:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Their wanting the ordination is irrelevant. Facts are facts, to not include it is POV. GreenJoe 21:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Lol! That's funnier than my jellybean. We can't every include every factoid about the people, we have to use editorial discretion. Lessheard's editorial discretion is that, because they didn't seek ordination, it's not worth putting into the article. I agree with him. You might also want to reread WP:NPOV because it's a very widely misunderstood policy. --kingboyk 22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read those template messages carefully. I wasn't adding an external link, I was citing a source. There is a big difference. University newspapers are just as good a source as any. They too have to check their facts. --GreenJoe 22:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any proof that they didn't willingly seek the ordination? GreenJoe 22:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have to prove they willingly sought it, since the ULC doesn't ordain anyone without their permission to my knowledge. GreenJoe 23:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
If there is a specific page for Beatles trivia, I wouldn't object to it being moved there. As for the exact date, I don't know what it is. I'm not sure HQ would tell me if I asked, and would probably be original research. However, User:CambridgeBayWeather didn't like them being in the ULC category, without the bit of trivia in the article and cited. So while I'm not opposed to the trivia itself moving, that page being in the category isn't very appropriate. GreenJoe 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I am agreeable to that and removed it from your talk page. Is there an actual page on the trivia, or just a WikiProject? GreenJoe 23:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My concern in all of this was not so much to do with it being included but that if it is, then it has a source. Now as to the inclusion I think it needs to be viewed in light of the notability. Look at Jerry Reinsdorf, who it appears performed a ceremony during a baseball game in Chicago. That appears to be notable. Now as to George Harrison, well if he preformed the marriage of Eric Clapton and Patti Boyd or he performed 100's of marragies then yes it should be included but if he never did anything then I'm not so sure it should be. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If the ULC relationship is marginal then it sounds like a good idea to me. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if Joe has noticed or not, but the Beatles are very notable indeed. Quite famous, actually. So, if anything really important and notable happened in their lives, a quick Google search would throw up a better source than a uni newspaper. Indeed, it would throw up thousands of links, many to quality newspapers.

That said, this is just the kind of thing that can go in the miscellanea article. Well done you two on reaching a compromise! --kingboyk 11:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine. GreenJoe 14:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Gere

As a person who has made comments on rumors related to Richard Gere on Jimbo Wales Talk, I thought you may be interested to know that due to the unwillingness of FNMF to find consensus on this issue I have taken the discsussion of the Gere/Crawford letter to the BLP noticeboard. [1]. Please feel free to comment. Sparkzilla 10:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on the RG page. As the discussion progresses it seems the actual problem is with the inclusion of subjective terms such as "sensitivity" in the BLP policy itself. This allow some users to say that sensitivity trumps reliable sources/notability. I think this is wrong and am petitioning to change the policy so that it does not allow narrow subjective views to distort policy. If you can be bothered, then I hope you can comment. The section starts here [2] and continues in different forms to the end of the page. Sparkzilla 10:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have made a new proposal for a change in the BLP policy to make sure that editors like FNMF cannot abuse the BLP policy to remove relevant and well-sourced material on grounds of "sensitivity". I appreciate your comments on my proposed changed to the policy. The latest proposal is at the bottom of this section: [3]. Thank you for your help. Sparkzilla 02:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo talk

No, I was seeing if anyone wanted to join in editing that page and certainly wasn not thinking of you in particular at all nor do I distrust your motives from what I see of your user page, SqueakBox 18:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's this?

[4] Why did you remove your edit? --kingboyk 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Exasperation. LessHeard vanU 23:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
At? --kingboyk 23:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC) PS I have a backlog on my talk page and of link disambiguations to do; I will reply tho! :)
(edit conflict)Reading an earlier section on the page. (I have just wiped a whole raft of whinging self justification here regarding same.) If you think it important to have this discussion can we continue it when I am calmer? If you think the bass stuff is relevant then please re-add it to the discussion. LessHeard vanU 23:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC) (ha! one of those talkpage things is likely to raise a wry chuckle.)
Not really important, no. I only moved it to the WP page because it's not about the article. I suppose it ought to be at Inage talk: really. Oh well... --kingboyk 23:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Across the Universe on film

Fair enough. Stick it back in the article, and please add a reference. I apologise for not checking the wikilink in the first place. LessHeard vanU 20:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I left a note with the original contributor to seeing if they want to add it to a different page. The Beatles is long enough without tangential items being appended. / edgarde 21:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Still my bad, though. I checked the editors contrib history (it was the only one) and then googled for it, what I didn't do was check the link and assume good faith. LessHeard vanU 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Happens to us all. Checking Google and then removing was reasonable. You're doing good work. / edgarde 21:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replied

...at User_talk:Kingboyk#.22Demn_You.2C_Sir.2C_for_a_Varlet.21.22. Sorry about the delay. --kingboyk 18:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

Tell you what, I've been away for a week or so, and look what you bloody kids have done! Messing up my lovely talk page with yer muddy shoes and beer cans everywhere! It's like one of them myspace parties I don't read about in my sophisticated broadsheet newpapers.--Crestville 16:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll go with Ollie's, just to be safe, so I removed all of the non-free images —Jøε Jαкяð

[edit] You're a sysop

I'm promoted you as a sysop, this required a bureaucrat discretion as it fell in the grey area. Reasons can be found on that RFA talk page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Mark! Best of luck with the mop. :-) —Anas talk? 10:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations from me too. Please contact User:Lar to arrange payment of your cartel membership fee :) --kingboyk 10:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations. Let me add that I hope you're going to [[disappoint|disprove]] the opposition and prove those right who placed their faith in you. Personally, I never planned on becoming an admin anyway ;-) All the best, —AldeBaer 10:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations!!! I hope you can help with fixing the Let It Be... Naked article as a fellow sysop blocked it because of the inclusion of copyrighted material. Steelbeard1 12:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I will pile on and add my congratulations! John Cardinal 17:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations - well-deserved. (Do I have to doff my cap in passing? :) egde 18:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Congrats... I'm sure you'll wield the mop wisely.—ACADEMY LEADER FOCUS! 07:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Horay!
Horay!
Yeah, I'm a little bit late but Congratulation's. You've earned the trust of the Wikipedia community, good work; and, for the future, good luck. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 09:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks... Er, what happens now?

I would like to thank everyone who participated in my RfA for one of the most intense and surreal experiences I have had in cyberspace. I humbly recognise that being an admin is no big deal but I had no idea how big a deal getting it is.

What has been made clear is the amount I still have to learn about this place. I should be grateful for any help and advice that anyone is prepared to give.LessHeard vanU 11:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Now get on and use the tools! :) I've created a nonsense page at User_talk:LessHeard_vanU/hfhd and I hereby request deletion of it. Find the button and zap it, please :) Cheers. --kingboyk 22:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Ooops - my apologies - it was pointed out to me by someone on IRC, so I waded in :). Congrats on your sysopship, and remember to have a bit of fun every now and again ;) Martinp23 23:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A real admin job for you if you're about

This one will take a few minutes, and I have to go out. No sweat if you can't do it or aren't here, I'll attend to it later.

User_talk:Kingboyk#Let_It_Be..._Naked_article_in_trouble

Article listed as a copyvio. Steelbeard has identified the last problem-free edit on my talk page. Basically, article needs to be deleted as a copyvio, and then all edits up to the last good version restored. It also needs to be removed from the copyvio page or clearly marked as dealt with by an admin, so that nobody else comes along and deletes it. Don't be embarressed to say it's too difficult, but if you can do it you help save a Beatles article :) --kingboyk 15:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Billy227

Care for another admin job? User:Billy227 is using AWB to make edits, and doing so at almost BOT-like speeds in some cases. Unfortunately, at least one of his "personal beliefs" is that articles should have only one internal link regardless of where a term appears in the article. So, for example, if George Martin is linked via an Infobox, then Billy227 will remove any wikilinks to George Martin in the article. Similarly, for an album article, if a song is mentioned in the text, Billy227 removes the wikilink from any subsequent track listing. In my opinion, he is acting in good faith but he is not using any judgement about the links and thus he is not following the guidelines in WP:MoS. When I reviewed his contributions last night, it was clear that at one point yesterday he was rapidly editing articles in alphabetical sequence. Two Beatle editors have now objected to his edits: I left a message on Billy227's talk page and so did another editor. His reply to me left little room for discussion, so I did not pursue it further.

Can you take a look at his edits and determine if an Admin action is appropriate? I am not suggesting a block or anything like that, but it may take someone with authority to get him to stop using AWB for edits that do not comply with MoS. If I should report this elsewhere, please let me know. You can reply here; I'll watch for it. Thanks! – John Cardinal 10:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed his AWB access. He can reapply when he agrees not to use the tool for controversial or trivial edits. --kingboyk 11:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I assume you have noted Kingboyk's actions (thanks, Steve)? While I am able to use the tools as yet I would prefer more experienced sysops to make the controversial decisions while I get the feel of the role. Thanks for the request. Next time I may be able to help better. LessHeard vanU 12:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. I have asked kingboyk for help in the past, but I know he has a lot on his plate so I figured I'd spread the requests around! <g> I was also unaware of kingboyk's role with AWB until after I left the entry above for LessHeard vanU. In general, I am ignorant of the subtleties of administrator actions, so if I ask for something that you'd prefer not to do, let me know. Actually, if I become a PITA for any reason, please let me know! — John Cardinal 15:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
A couple of people I respect, and Steve, suggest that I had best get used to the simple stuff before embarking on major changes using the tools. Sage advice. But don't stop asking, as I will need to do the proper mopping at some time. LessHeard vanU 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
"A couple of people I respect, and Steve". Bah! Waited to get that in until after your RFA, huh?
John: As my user page says, I am a jack of all trades, and master of none. I'm the fellow that introduces new bugs into AWB to give the other devs something to do ;) --kingboyk 21:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a response, but a promise of a response

Hi, LessHeard vanU. Apologies for my late response. I read your message(s) several days ago, but had made my password so secure that I couldn't remember it, and was not at my usual computer. I didn't want to reset the password. I've also been very busy lately.

I appreciate your message of reconciliation, and am glad that you don't seem to be angry at my opposition of your adminship. I will respond later, but am going into work in a moment. Regards, Musical Linguist 11:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP

I read your recent comments on the BLP talk page and admin noticeboard about whether WP:BLP applies to the deceased, and was encouraged. As you are aware, I hold strongly to the belief that tabloid material must be excluded, and to the belief that BLP entries must be edited sensitively and with an awareness of the WP:BLP rationale (BLP entries affect people's lives...and even celebrities count as people!). I have the feeling that the Wikipedia community is very gradually heading toward an acceptance of these necessities (naturally inducing its own resistance along the way). But I am glad to see that my opposition to you on a previous matter, and my opposition to your request for adminship, have not caused you to reflect on these matters with bias or malice. Good luck with your administration. FNMF 00:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. My position hasn't changed insofar that I believe notable events properly sourced and referenced should be included in biographical articles, and my interpretation of notable and a reliable source may differ from other editors, but the issue of sensitivity regarding subjects should necessarily extend to the immediate period after death. LessHeard vanU 12:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I really appreciate your support regarding my usurpation request on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. I also appreciate your suggestions that may lead to an usurpation policy that is a little more 'user friendly'. EleosPrime 01:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back

Yeh looks like Im back Reedgunner 08:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hi Mark. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See!? I can participate in non-controversial aspects of WP! Truthfully, a bit of a no brainer. I have every confidence in your use of the tools. Congrats. LessHeard vanU 22:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Ack! Sorry... I have no idea what happened. I certainly didn't intend to revert you, and didn't realize I had until the edit appeared on my watchlist. Sorry again; I have reverted myself. Cheers, -- Visviva 10:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I struck out my first comment. Please remove if you wish (and I will do the same here), LessHeard vanU 10:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just curious... is the Gracenotes RfA talk page supposed to be protected? 'Cause it isn't at the moment (and neither is the main page). Not really sure why it would be, though. -- Visviva 03:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing other people's posts

As an admin, you should know better than to do this. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I do now. LessHeard vanU 21:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Mark, please don't ask people why they are opposing. There has been too much of it already. It's time to just allow people to comment and move on. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

They commented they had their own misgivings. If there is something other than the reasons already given then they prove useful to the debate. If there is nothing new, then indeed there is little reason to pursue the matter. LessHeard vanU 20:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for note, which is much appreciated. I never object to being hit with olive branches. :-) It's fine for people to disagree from time to time; in fact, it's healthy. I know we're all in it (well, most of us, and definitely you) for the good of Wikipedia one way or another. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about my mistake. The page was a bit unwiedly and so I stumbled. And thanks for telling me. Str1977 (smile back) 21:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem in The Beatles discography

User talk:ESkog has deleted the album covers in The Beatles discography. If you look at his talk page, other editors have complained about the removal of album covers of other discography articles. Is there any way you can help in getting the album covers back in the discography articles? You can reply in the talk pages you feel to be most appropriate in getting the discussion going. Steelbeard1 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your call

Less, I think the bureaucrats would have taken the final figures when the RfA closed, though I also think they won't judge by figures alone. However, if you want to protect, that's fine with me. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christoph Ruckhaberle

You were right to be suspcious; it's verbatim from here. 86.140.181.239 15:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Infoart

Thanks for getting in touch. There are issues here that need to be addressed. User:Infoart has created many articles. All the ones I have seen are of artists exhibited/promoted by the Saatchi Gallery, i.e. in Charles Saatchi's collection. The articles in their initial form were cut and paste copyvios from the Saatchi Gallery web site. Infoart explained that it was his copyright as he was the original author and therefore the text could be used. This is an admission of WP:COI.

The text used is not suitable for wikipedia. It is curatorial interpretation of the artist's work, to be polite. Some of it could be quoted with a reference to show the Saatchi Gallery's view of such work, but only as a quote. Some of the text has been changed by other editors. However, when I last looked (which was a while ago) much text still needed a lot of attention. Christoph Ruckhaberle is a case in point, but has been properly pruned by User:86.140.181.239 to factual matter.

Re. notability, the irony is that if an artist is on the Saatchi site it effectively gives them notability per se, especially as the artist is almost certain to have other CV achievements also. You can see the power of the Saatchi site. It has an Alexa rank in US near 3,000 and in UK near 5,000,[5], surpassing both the Tate and MoMA (Museum of Modern Art, NY), for example.[6]

The articles could all technically be speedy deleted as G11, blatant advertising requiring rewrite. The reason I didn't pursue this case more rigorously at the time was that I consider on balance it is more to wiki's benefit to have these article than not to have them. It adds usefully to the contemporary art data, of which there is a woeful lack compared to other subject areas (last year 3 of the 4 Turner Prize nominees lacked article till I added them, and this year 2 did). I also had a lack of time, and even more of one now, I'm afraid. The reply to my email, which took some time coming, was an invitation to discuss on the talk page.

My suggestion is that they are ruthlessly pruned, with a short quote left, as a quote, from the copyvio text, attributed to the gallery. However, Infoart definitely needs to be taken in hand, and educated to either write proper articles or else be blocked for persisting in the current mode.

You might want to notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts to get some assistance. Also editors who have been effective in the contemporary art field are Bus stop, Freshacconci and Johnbod.

I hope this helps. Get back to me if you need to.

Tyrenius 04:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Infoart and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Infoart articles. Tyrenius 14:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Comment from /LessHeard vanU

(refactored)

See Support vote 91 and Q.9 (and my comment at Gracenotes talkpage re Q.9) at Gracenotes RfA. I will not argue with you, since I agree with most of your points, and therefore reluctantly shall withdraw from this discussion. You do whatever you feel appropriate, but please leave me out of your sense of outrage and disappointment. Thank you. LessHeard vanU 16:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(refactored)(note; I originally said vote 90 when I meant 91 i.e. mine.)

[edit] Optional Question

Wow, a matter of seconds between our two questions. Yeah, I'll renumber mine. Thanks for pointing that out. GoodnightmushTalk 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 00:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I renumbered mine, but I think its best to keep all optional Qs together and separate from his statement so i moved yours down with mine and another editors, hope you don't mind. GoodnightmushTalk 02:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) 00:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy

Sorry, I didn't see the tag. The last post was pretty recent so I just assumed.--Shadowdrak 20:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Okay

Hello LessHeard vanU, To me mentioning that I am on the verge of being blocked is a major threaten and should not be taken lightly, people pick and chose who to block and sometimes for confusing or no reason I do not even want to be near that block of execution. And I believe with all that has happened these past 5 days that I have moderated my language to some great extent with all that has been thrown at me.

But if you could help clear up confusion in two problems:
Tangeline is up for deletion and I do not know why.
Coral Smith - there is a user who keeps spamming and reverting my edits under no bias.
Thanks--Migospia †♥ 09:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted articles to user space

Undelete all versions of the the article, move it to a user subpage, delink any categories in the article. Delete the redirect that has been created where the original article was, to avoid cross name space redirects. Let me know if there's any hiccups. Tyrenius 14:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everybody Hates Chris

I've responded to you about the issue on the article EverybodyHatesChris 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem - you did more than I did anyway - I just said I agreed with you XD. The whole thing strikes me as weird though. The dispute seems like a fairly minor deal though - I'm surpirsed that the editors couldn't work it out themselves. <sigh>, craziness. --danielfolsom 21:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


I wrote this to you on Coral Smith talk page:

No! LessHeard, you have yet to give me an answer to my question. You need to answer me, LessHeard. Read this from her source and explain to me how this supports her contention. You haven't been able to explain that to me, LessHeard. It doesn't really matter what Daniel or anyone else thinks, LessHeard. You need to go by the facts. Here's the fact in this article:

I feel like he was able to open up to me. And when Abram and I opened up to each other, it was a beautiful, beautiful friendship that I've never experienced before, ever.

You tell me LessHeard, how that supports her contention that the two of them had a gf/bf relationship. I've already written this down once. This is twice I've had to write it down for you. That's not good. EverybodyHatesChris 02:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You Wrote: That's just it LessHeard. This is why I had to be so tough with you, LessHeard. You still think she could have used what she had as a source: The irony is that had you agreed, as I originally suggested, that both your and Migospia's references be included that your preferred version would have been of an equal footing. She couldn't use that as a source at all and that's why I made sure they got rid of it LessHeard, and you didn't understand that. If there's going to be a contention, there has to be a source to support it or else it doesn't do anything. You wanted to put both of the sources in LessHeard, and I couldn't allow that because that source did not support her contention and you also wouldn't answer my question, LessHeard. I needed to be tough because no matter how many times I said it, it wasn't getting through to you, LessHeard, because it still hasn't. I wasn't there to get rid of her information, I was there to make sure she had a source that supported it. I was teaching her that the source has to support her contention and that needed to be done, Lessheard. EverybodyHatesChris 22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] you've been reported

LessHeard, I've just e-mailed the warning you gave me to wikipedia. I didn't think it was fair at all and I'm going to complain about it and ask them if I can erase it from my page because it doesn't belong there. You wouldn't even address the issue up above before you stuck me with a warning. I don't have to tolerate that, LessHeard EverybodyHatesChris 12:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EverybodyHatesChris

EverybodyHatesChris reverted Danielfolsom edits to Coral Smith, so I come to you for help?--Migospia †♥ 03:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok sounds good - thanks for the heads up. I think things had gotten a bit too heated, so I'm considering just backing out. It's not like I'm leaving some heated debate- the debate was over, it just got weird afterwards, but I'll be glad to give you the heads up. Thanks again, --danielfolsom 19:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astrid Kirchherr

Hi Mark hope your'e well. User:204.126.64.254 keeps on putting that It's a piccy of Pattie Boyd and not Astrid on the page. I've revered twice and told him that it is Astrid. I've now put a test 4 on his page. will you have a word please? Cheers pal. Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mark. They seem to have given up after the Test 4. But I would be greatful if you would still keep an eye on em - I mean, a blind man on a galloping horse would notice the gap in Pattie's teeth! Btw, Congratulations, If I'd known, Ida voted for yer! Cheers Pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry pal, I get confused with Scottish icons meself - speshley King Billy an the rest of them Ranger's players! Cheers Mark! Vera, Chuck & Dave 00:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My recognition

Recognition
While browsing the discussion at ElinorD's RfA, i noticed your comment and just decided to award you this particular barnstar. Very well-deserved. I used my William Wallace's pic as i couldn' find an appropriate barnstar for in a recognition for your action. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Thank you. I honestly do not understand what message, if any, that this figure might be attempting to convey, but I thank you for the thought... ;~) LessHeard vanU 19:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hehehehe. It was just a random pic of mine as i couldn't find an approp barnstar for your pacific stance. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

You recently edited an article for Dekker Dreyer... the article is up for deletion based on notability, and I would like to ask you to chime in on the discussion of that deletion. Wikimegamaster 22:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Lisa Ann Diaz

Hi, thanks for the message! I declined {{db-attack}} because it's true. A {{prod}} tag is okay, but I'd rather wait for a few days to see if the article's creator comes back to improve it. Thanks again – KrakatoaKatie 13:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] well

I remove it cause been there for couple of days and i know i didn't do no personal attack. [7] look what he said there, I don't have the time going back and forth on personal attack, but that wasn't the first, and i wasn't the only one. Now to my point that what that user do, try get people block so he can spread propaganda, and I understand most people don't know what going on, but why do admis take he side all the time, yes the language I use might be right, but look the language s/he uses. s/he accuses other people having different account but s/he got 3 that i know off. so tell me how Dominican Article neutral when it spread propaganda, get sources that clearly bias, use words that not even in the source and so on...i apologies for what have happen but hey my country they talking about lies as facts. AvFnx 14:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responded

Maybe you can help me out I responded to what you said on 3RR--Migospia†♥ 00:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Responded, Rocket is saying I violated something and I am saying how?--Migospia†♥ 00:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sort it out with Rocket. He is a good'un, you are a good'un. (hint) Pretend you are Rocket, trying to help a friend, and see how he sees things... LessHeard vanU 00:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if you look at Rockets last comments on the page it seems almost impossible to try and sort things out with him, and now he is saying the word newbie is bad and like the n word, daniel said it but rocket has not denied it. But I am saying since you are an admin as well and also you were telling me about 3rr like I did not know, so that is why I was asking you--Migospia†♥ 00:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look when I get up later today... LessHeard vanU 01:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanks--Migospia†♥ 01:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Also whenever you wake up danielfolsom now hates me for some reason and there seems to be a HUGE misunderstanding--Migospia†♥ 05:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh my gosh did you read all that was said on my talk page? And for what? Sick pleasure?--Migospia†♥ 20:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (refactored)

(refactored)

(refactored)

[edit] Migospia

Hello LessHeard vanU. Thanks for your voice of reason on Migospia's talkpage. As you have probably gathered, my patience is wearing thin. So, for her own good, i'm planning to simply shun Migospia for a while. I'm going to counsel Daniel to do likewise, as I don't think their interaction is proving constructive for either of them.

I note that, because you didn't concur with her interpretation of our interactions, you are no longer quite in as much favour as you were previously. This leaves me wondering how anyone is going to be able to guide Migospia without being accused of hatemongering or making attacks. Since she has a penchance for editing controversial articles on which she has a strong POV, I feel its only a matter of time until this happens again. While I really don't want to get involved with her again, I don't believe its appropriate to give her a pass simply because the alternative turns into high drama. Your thoughts on how to proceed in future would be most welcome, because I'm at the point now where I'm thinking a short block is preferable to a repeat of the circus that happened yesterday. Rockpocket 21:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on further investigation, it appears it was EHC, not Migospia, that was unhappy with you. Sorry about that (it is difficult to track who says what when they intersperse their comments, and quote others so regularly). So maybe you will be able to guide her better, though reading the reply below... good luck with that. I have supported your comments at AN/I also, its better this is dealt with now. Rockpocket 01:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to turn people aganist me and hurt me and feeding all these lies to lessheard. Example to lessheardvan of what rocket has said about ME:

  • how anyone is going to be able to guide Migospia without being accused of hatemongering or making attacks

When have I accused you have making attack recently, I haven't nor have I done that with lessheard or slimvirgin, becasuse they have not.

  • Since she has a penchance for editing controversial articles on which she has a strong POV

Lol actually no I don't and don't you dare say such a thing, when and if I edit a talk about the edit most of the time before like I did with you on Veganism

  • I feel its only a matter of time until this happens again

You see that is what I fear too if you keep baiting Daniel and now trying to turn lessheard aganist me of course it would happean but if you stop biating othes and if you accuse me of something show me proof I mean it is that simple but talking about me like this behind my back is not going to help anything

  • simply because the alternative turns into high drama

So when someone bullys me and I defend myself and when people accuse me with no proof and bait others and I defend myself all of a sudden its fucking drama?

  • I'm thinking a short block is preferable to a repeat

Look threanting to block me after I have been bullied and hate and that is a way to get me fucking raging!

LessHeard vanU0 From what it seems and I have proven Rockpocket creates things aganist me and always wants to block me it seems best that he avoids me but also avoids making horrible threats aganist me as well as stop talking about me like this behind my back it is uncalled for and sick, Daniel use to be nice and clear to me, and from reading what he did to me yesterday it is clear where he gets it from. LessHeard please don't change because you still are nice and would hate to loose another person to rockpocket --Migospia†♥ 22:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation pages

I sent you an e-mail about a question on repairing links to disambiguation pages

Sorry, I haven't checked my mail. I prefer to do my Wiki stuff in the open, unless it is really sensitive. Being open is what I am about (I hope - anyone reading this and disagreeing ought to send me an email!;~))LessHeard vanU 12:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Also with Daniel just tell him that he should not do those things they hurt people and one day he may hurt someone weaker than me and things happen, but also tell him that he was mistaken about me and I did not call you a liar, or use the word n00b (which he thinks is up there with nigger), and I did nothing with the vegan pov hopefully that woud sort things out and we can spread WikiLove! And maybe not to get into conversations like trolls do and start a big mess that hurts people and last hours when we could have be editing articles and help with Wikipeida. Also if Rocket could stop talking about me to other people and keep wanting to block me for no reason, I tried to get this through yesterday but no one would listen! Instead hate! Hopefully if this is said I can get over the exerpience I had yesterday, and peace. Oh I hope what rocket said did not affect the way you feel about me--Migospia†♥ 23:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Danielfolsom is a good editor, and rockpocket appears to be a very good admin. I think if we all stepped back a bit and just did some quiet non-controversial editing (I go off and do a bit of Spelling and Grammer checking on Random articles) then we will all feel the benefit. Also, FYI, I am on UK time and have family commitments so I may not always respond immediately to your requests (this is my lunchbreak). I see rockpocket has helped you with the disambig request. LessHeard vanU 12:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes rockpocket helped me. And just saying that would help clear things up in the future really has nothing to do with editing controversial articles lol, just what I stated above simple to avoid and so far has been done. Hopefully will continue!--Migospia†♥ 13:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avfnx

sometime i forget log in so i write a post only to realize that I didn't log in, so i go and log in and sign it w/ my user name. Im not try have 2 accounts, and but i be more careful from now one. After my block I been more active taking thing to the talk page, which I did try. I like thank you for you time; but I know they going find a way to block me. Before I got involve there were vandalism claim that the Trinitario (was a secret organization, that free Dominican Republic) inspire the creation of the KKK. The no basis for that, even the higher rank leader was black himself. My point trying get at is that i been trying clean the article up, make more neutral...I guess i been getting people way. I lose my cool sometime but is that i really do care. The Juan Pablo Duarte that article needs lot of work but i was rvt vandalism (calling founding founder of DR racist) I know as the article stand is to one side it. But i been try get English cited source about he's life so i can clean that article, it taking longer then i thought. If the cited source not in English people use that to say no good and erase it. Once again thank for your time, and i try not to slip so i don't end up getting blocked, I see people are look for that AvFnx 15:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My revert and attempted restoration of your edit

Hi, LessHeard vanU. I had decided not to go round to all the talk pages of people who supported my RfA and drop boilerplate thank yous on them — not because it's too much trouble to express my appreciation, but because I have seen a few examples of people being irritated by it, and I have no way of knowing who would and who wouldn't find it annoying. So I thought I'd just thank people any time I happened to be at their talk pages for some other reason. I'm at your talk page now, so, even though my RfA is not closed yet — thank you for your support. I especially appreciate it from someone who disagrees with me about some issues.

Anyway, why am I at your talk page? Because the edit that you made here for some reason duplicated whole sections of the page. I reverted you here, and then, in my next post, tried to add what I think you had added. However, I had no way of knowing if the post I found was the only new material you had intentionally added to the page. Perhaps you could take a look and re-add anything I missed? Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As I was getting ready to save, the orange bar lit up, as you had just posted on my page. ElinorD (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Yup. Thanks again. LessHeard vanU 21:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Avfnx and User:BoriquaStar

It was a simple copy and paste from the AIV. Which I did before. They suggested that I go to ANI for another case [8] . I don't really care about other people's complaints about him. I care about him changing people's conversations. So is changing someone's conversation on a talk page considered to be ok?BoriquaStar 21:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Last question first, no it is not okay to change someones comments on a talkpage. From what I see Avfnx apologised for his actions and, although I do not have a view whether his earlier actions were deliberate or a mistake, unless there are very good reasons not to(which would require supporting diffs) editors should assume good faith. I would direct you to User:Moeron's comment at WP:ANI that any repetition would be a reason for suspicion.
As commented, I am familiar with the recent history of Avfnx's contributions and some concerns raised about him. Some complaints appear to have been motivated by reasons other than those which should concern WP. I made these remarks so you should be aware that any future claims regarding the editors contributions (which can, and have been, in violation of policies, etc.) are both properly founded and have not been resolved between the two parties concerned. Basically, if the guy says "sorry" then there is nothing that can be done unless the incidents recur. Then, and discussion between the sides has not resolved the matter, the incident(s) should be bought to the notice of admins. LessHeard vanU 22:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well basically this is what happened. There was an unsigned comment. I signed it for the user with the unsign tag [9] [10] [11]. He then created spaces which I saw here [12] and said i signed it. Anyway, that's it. I'm not going to be bothered with it. BoriquaStar 22:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you check something for me?

The sound sample Image:Adayinthelifesample.ogg was deleted recently. All I can tell so far is that the deletor said the sampe was too long. I looked at a bunch of Beatle-related samples a few months ago and I didn't find any that were either longer than 30 secs or more than 10%.. I may have missed A Day in the Life. Anyway, can you look into it and see if the samplewas actually too long? John Cardinal 02:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Where do I request clarification? Do I just contact the deletor, or ? John Cardinal 17:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring on Kurdistan Workers Party and User:Qwl

First, I would apologise again for not realising that the edit summary comments were a personal attack. If I had realised I would have blocked the editor for that violation, as well as the 3RR. I did not issue a block in this instance because, although 3RR was violated, User:Qwl was not continuing the revert war and the article had been "cleaned" of their edits. As blocking is preventative rather than punitive I saw no point in blocking an editor who was no longer making those edits, so I decided to issue a warning instead. I hope this explains my actions and non-actions. LessHeard vanU 19:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh its fine. There is nothing to apologies about. If the disruption stops - I am cool with that. :) -- Cat chi? 21:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
[13]. User is still removing the material. Perhaps the page should be semi-protected. -- Cat chi? 09:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View - NPOV. this is a threat and propanda. wikipedia refuse it.--Qwl 19:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I will use that rule. i will write many news have good sources like that example.wait.. you dont have neutral view.--Qwl 00:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infoart new section

Yes... It was a fairly new user who reverted you, and I doubt if it's happened elsewhere. Still, worth checking. I wonder if people would like to check and watchlist the articles they've cleaned up? Tyrenius 23:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Maybe bold the name, when it has been checked and watchlisted? Tyrenius 23:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What?

So let me get this straight, you wanted to get rid of that information on David Thorpe (artist) because it wasn't cited or was it vandalism? But if you didn't want it there why didn't you just revert my revert and not just leave it? please get back to me on it. "I don't care what you think" 02:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Are you on? I could sure use some help--Migospia†♥ 02:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't get your response, I said at rock-

Can you keep a close eye and review Hayley Westenra.[14]. I added a category, got reverted once talked on the user's talk page, waited 5 hours and talked on Hayley Westenra's talk page's saying I will revert as I did. The user got back with me on the talk page 7 hours later with one source for my 4, so I said like what happened with Coral Smith if you have two or more sources differing each-other in a way include both, so I included both in my last edit, but if the user has any objections or reverts can you check this out?--Migospia†♥ 23:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes please help the user changed it but it makes no sense--Migospia†♥ 00:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And you said: 'Please try talking to Andrew D White. Resolve your differences civilly and try to get a wording that satisfies the both of you. Reverting is not an editorial tool.'

How does that help me fom what I said above?--Migospia†♥ 09:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


I came here to get him too. It looks like, from his edit history, that he generally goes to bed 2-3 hours ago. Lsi john 03:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I'm honored that you thought I was. :) Peace. Lsi john 22:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Board Election

I have copied this from the shy Kingboyk's page. andreasegde 19:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"I'm planning to run in the Wikimedia Board Election. If you have any issues which you feel the Foundation need to address, or if you would be willing to endorse my candidature, please email me". --kingboyk 15:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"To endorse me. I need 15, only have 2 so far, so u have a chance to be #3" :) : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2007/Endorsements/Submission#Kingboyk

[edit] Vote for The Fifth Beatle

The_Fifth_Beatle You have to start an account though... andreasegde 19:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've put a proper link to this page on your Meta-Wiki page, because they struck out your vote - "No link from local". (Kingboyk did it for me, so I am passing the favour on.) --andreasegde 09:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE your post on Migospia's page

LessHeard vanU, wasn't it ExcellentEditor that was marked as the sock puppet? At least thats what his talk page says. WikiTweak's page seems to be entact. Lsi john 22:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm a bit confused now, more so. Mama's Family was going through an edit war history and it appears at least two of the accounts were blocked as EHC socks. But the edits they made were counter to each other. Are any of the other editors that were involved in the edit war also socks of his? Lsi john 22:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
re the message on Migospia's page, I have replied on yours. I am not familiar with the case, but it isn't unknown to have socks argue with each other either for trolling purposes or to construct a strawman argument scenario where one "side" concedes the argument and seemingly closes the debate (in the puppetmasters preferred version). As I said, I have not followed this and only noted a comment I found in passing. LessHeard vanU 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I saw this and remembered the name, and Migospia having some trouble with same over an article where I had first encountered her. LessHeard vanU 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, that explains what I was seeing. And, your report to Mig. was incorrect. WikiTweak was the only one of the group 'not' blocked, it seems. Lsi john 23:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I will edit my comment there. LessHeard vanU 23:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Um, I don't think WikiTweat was ever confirmed as a sock. And, based on the blocks, two of the socks did argue with each other. I don't know what the game was, but it confused me when I was watching it. But that's because I can't see IPs. ;) .. so, regarding your post to Mig.. WikiTweat has not been confirmed as a sock (to my knowledge). Lsi john 23:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you check my link? Same IP range for WikiTweak, EHC and some others (who were edit warring with each other) and had much the same interests... LessHeard vanU 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes I read it. You might want to go read it again. ;) Lsi john 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We are now verifying m:User:LessHeard vanU's endorsement. However this endorsement doesn't two of requirements,

  1. On meta user page, a link to the project under which the user meet the eligibility criteria
  2. Even we accept the writing pointer instead, your user page has no link to meta user page

Unless those requirements are filled, the endorsement submitted by that user will be disqualified due to lack of proof for eligibility. Thank you for your attention, --Aphaia 06:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a heads up

User:Pigsonthewing continued to editwar, and moved the "Warning" that he had violated 3rr on his user page, to his talk page. I extended his block to 72 hours and protected the talk page for that duration, hopefully he comes back and doesn't edit disruptively any further. SirFozzie 15:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Special Barnstar
Thanks for your work on the InfoArt cleanup project. Tyrenius 21:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] And thanks...

...for all the fish. I'm just glad everyone rallied round; and you were most able in the task. Tyrenius 22:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis Collins

Alright Mark? Have you ever heard that Collins' father was once The Beatles Road Manager - I've not! Cheers Pal, Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

The archive box on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts was on some sort of automatic archiving and I couldn't figure out how to do what I wanted, so I've converted it to manual operation, which is a lot easier to comprehend, even if not quite so snazzy. I've kept the Infoart articles page where it is, and just put a note at the top that it's now an archive, then linked to it from the archive box on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. That way it is preserved as a discrete entity. There's a bit more explanation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Archiving_.2FInfoart_articles.

I'm not sure if Infoart articles should actually have been a subpage of the main project page to start with, instead of a subpage of the talk page, but it's done the job now anyway.

Tyrenius 00:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is the problem with helpful "explanations" on wikipedia processes. I'm sure they are faultless, just incomprehensible. I'm no expert, but feel free to try me... Tyrenius 01:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dopey and Boil

LOL! Sloppy seconds! (Errgh!) Yeah, I'll have roadie Mark maybe! Thanks for that, I don't even know why I clicked on his article, must have been some reason but I can't remember now! Oh aye, he's a real Head the Ball that one! He even pulled a loaded 9mm on a Woman in the West End once, an got away with it, God knows how! I tried shearching for the incident but there's no trace anywhere (that would look good in his article eh?) I've stuck me oar in about the Fabs (leaving a lot in reserve, should it be needed). Cheers Mark, Tony

[edit] Tony Sidaway

Please don't use boilerplate warnings on experienced editors, it's sloppy, arrogant and does nothing but promote ill-feeling. Thanks. Nick 20:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If experienced editors act like new contributors and continue to violate WP:FORUM, despite friendly low key warnings, and do not comment when such warnings are altered like this, then they will get boilerplate warnings. LessHeard vanU 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, if you check the discussion that has been removed [15] [16], you'll find that it's all on topic. The question is who the Tocaflane could me, and this has a bearing on how we write about them in the article. The events in the recently passed article need to be collated and properly described. It's all a bit lighthearted because, frankly, the answers aren't available in a lot of cases, so we like to fill in the gaps in our explanations with speculation. All of the Doctor Who project people have happily put a lot of work into the articles and quality is improving, but we cannot maintain that improvement in the face of editors who try to bully us into stopping those necessary discussions.
You refer to my editing Rambutan's comment. This was to fix the unsightly formatting he used. Talk pages quickly become very difficult to use if editors insist on using unorthodox formatting.
Now please don't issue any more frankly ridiculous, counter-productive warnings like that, please try not to interfere in the work carried on in the Doctor Who project, which is widely recognised as one of the best fictional projects we have on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 21:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, therefore discussion of what or who the little balls may contain is irrelevant. I also do not see what use the fact that you find the character/actress performing the role of Mrs Saxon as "quite a hottie" as helping the article. I cannot see the point in speculating because, and I am surprised you seem unaware, you will need to source a third party reference to describe the Tocaflane when you come to add to the article.
The diff I provided regarding the altering of editors comment was when the anon editor removed the {{talkheader}} heading I used in my extremely polite notification that the discussion was not appropriate. As an experienced editor you should have re-instated the header and possibly commented, like you are now doing. You did not, which compounded the incivility.
FYI I do not interfere with good article work, but I certainly do apply WP rules, policies and guidelines where I find they are not being adhered to. LessHeard vanU 21:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Again I warn you that you're interfering with necessary discussions. There is some speculation, but that is inevitable. Believe it or not, we do understand about referencing, but we like to speculate. If you try to stop all speculation on the talk pages of the Doctor Who articles, by using your admin tools, I promise you, you will have some explaining to do. I won't stand for this kind of bullying of editors on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 22:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Threats don't impress me. Editors who use threats to attempt to bluff their way out of valid criticism of inappropriate actions impress me even less. LessHeard vanU 22:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Last of the Time Lords edit

Hi, I edited this article a few minutes ago (my IP address is 82.47.23.237), and I would just like to point out that the source did not actually have any reference to Colin Firth, regeneration or was in any way related to the content I deleted. It was slightly annoying to find that I had 'vandalised' when in fact it was the opposite taking place, so I wanted to set things right. Ah, I feel better now. Thanks for that! Eadian 00:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(copied from Eadians talkpage)Thanks for your comment on my talkpage. I believe the "sourced content" I was replacing was the London Gay Pride screening], which had been removed per this diff. I did this after you made your edit, which was legit as far as I am concerned, so I apologise for not clarifying which "sourced material" I was referring to. LessHeard vanU 12:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It's quite alright! It was just a little surprising, that's all. I promise to be more careful in the future when editing articles with such vigilant guardians such as yourself. :D Eadian 18:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re Last of the Time Lords

No problem. IP's are a pain to keep track of. Mark H Wilkinson 14:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Charles Saatchi

I'd be grateful if you could keep your eye on things per bottom discussion on the above page. Ta! Tyrenius 01:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Okay, agreed, I think, although I think NOR is protected. I'm losing track to be honest. Any assistance/advice is appreciated. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. Yes, agreed, and thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re User:EverybodyHatesChris

I am pretty sure it is User:EverybodyHatesChris that is spamming the Coral Smith article with the IP 75.61.126.12, something can be done?--Migospia†♥ 17:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay well if it not EHC (although it seems like him with the edits he makes) still the ip makes too many edits in such a short time that it makes it hard to compare versions--Migospia†♥ 13:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hi Mark, just a quick note to say thanks for participating in my request for adminship. It was successful and I now have some shiny new buttons. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Happy editing, mattbr 10:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for the heads-up

He's a sock of community-banned Dereks1x - completely obvious when you've dealt with him 10 or 20 times before. (And- last time I looked, no, I'm not a bloke!) Tvoz |talk 23:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I check on a regular basis: no changes to report. Thanks for the latest heads-up - it's all so tedious. Tvoz |talk 00:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ^_^

♥Fighting for charming Love♥ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 22:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thank you for your comments in my recent RfA. However, it was unsuccessful. I am in no way disheartened, and I am working on all the constructive critisism I have received. Hopefully next time I will have sorted out everything you pointed out. If you have any further suggestions or comments, feel free to drop me a line on my talk page, and I will be happy to respond. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on Watchtower....

You know, I went back through his contribs (before today's debacle), and I find him making similar arguments over an MfD CambridgeBayWeather started on a page of WS's: "ignorance of policy", "stretching policy for his own ends", an instance of canvassing, and that's only on the first page of contribs. He got hung up on User:Hamsacharya dan for a bit, to the point where he was named in an SSP. The diffs aren't important for purposes of my argument here (though I'll certainly go get them), but I'm thinking that this Joseph Smith issue is simply an instance of a pattern of behavior, which is pretty sad as the account is only a few months old (14 March 2007, first four edits were reverts). Seems socky to me, but that's another issue; it's the pattern of behavior that concerns me, and it's not the behavior of our usual suspects, so it's not one of them. MSJapan 21:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Perhaps this is something to bring up on the WP:ANI thread, the repetitive behaviour when an edit is (part) reverted. I would then let other admins draw their own conclusions. I also note that Watchtower Sentinel has not edited for a couple of hours, so I am content to see if (s)he continues to provide their own rope. LessHeard vanU 21:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Just edited. I will flash out that other stuff though, and add it in. MSJapan 21:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Blackdragon6

Hi, this user is requesting unblock, and has promised not to upload the offending image anymore, but to go through deletion review. As I believe this is a good faith unblock request, and I promised to speak on his behalf if he said he'd stop, could I ask you to consider unblocking this user? Thanks. The Evil Spartan 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing sourced material

Thank you for your message. Please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard where you will see the real problem I and others are having with Smatprt. [[17]] (Felsommerfeld 16:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] DreamGuy my response to those who have commented on this user's blocking

(Posted also on individual talk pages) Thank you to Bishonen, LessHeard vanU, Hamster Sandwich, Lsi john, Butseriouslyfolks, Pascal.Tesson & Evilclown93 for taking an interest in this matter. I appreciate the views you have provided and understand them all to be in good faith. I detail the following comments for historical purposes:

  1. For the record I do not get upset by comments made towards me on wikipedia. If you feel that I have, those feelings are incorrect, and I wish to go on the record as saying that I do not have any personal issue with or feelings against DreamGuy in any way.
  2. People will have different views on edit-warring. That was absolutely neither my intention nor, in my view a reflection of my actions in regards to Image:Daredevil46.jpg. DreamGuy placed a tag initially [18] on July 5th that said, This images has been deleted probably some 20 times now under various names.... no fair use, not cover art that was used as cover, needs a speedy delete as recreation of deleted image, and the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen.
    I assume as a part of his admin role Evilclown93 removed that tag as detailed here.
    Dream Guy's reply (unknown to me at the time) was to suggest that Evilclown93 was a sock of the uploader.
    It was only a few days later that I, also as a part of my admin role came across the speedy delete request and confronted with the above rationale, agreed with Evilclown93 views and removed the request stating in my edit notice: reverted edits by DreamGuy to that of Evilclown93 - who is not a "sock" but an admin. Pls use only correct speedy tags before replacing (if at all).
    A further four days later, again just as a part of my admin role (see history of my admin work for that day) I came across the renewed speedy request, again with the above rationale. Confronted by no more information, I removed the speedy noting in the edit summary: Speedy deletion tag removed - awaiting a NPOV request that retains civility! You will note that I was talking about the content of the speedy deletion tag request of which I considered words such as the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... to be misplaced, no matter the frustration felt by Dream Guy. I then left the matter.
    DreamGuy it appears renewed his request again and without alteration at which point Butseriouslyfolks removed it, it was renewed and then Butseriouslyfolks put it up at WP:FUR.
    I came across it a day later and after I had left an adjusted canned message (which as most of you know includes a welcome to wikipedia line) on DreamGuy's talk page that also said, politely, Please assume good faith in relation to tagging an image for Speedy Delete. The reason that two (and now 3 admins) did not agree with your tag was made more and more obvious to you. Quite simply your request was polluted with a non-neutral POV and did not nothing to assist us in attending to the request. Please do not continue to suggest speedy deletion in this method - no matter what editor is frustrating you with their additions as it belittles your otherwise good work. Keep editing! My warning therefore was in relation to his edit-warring with three admins who did not agree with his method.
  3. In relation to blocking ... Following the posting at WP:FUR - at which I note Dream Guy has commented, he still reverted Butseriouslyfolks' removal of the speedy tag, even after Butseriouslyfolks wrote in his edit summary, Let's discuss it first, please?. Finding another reversion, despite an ongoing request at WP:FUR and noting that DreamGuy has been warned before and blocked before, and most importantly that whatever any admin did DreamGuy would revert, I blocked him for a period which I considered at the time to be commensurate with his previous block and the continued reversions. To the extent that others consider that amount of time excessive I thank you, and particularly to Pascal.Tesson for his revision of the time line.
  4. I note the comments above that in the opinion of an other editor Dream Guy is not the most polite individual on wikipedia, but he damned sure isn't the most acrid either and I agree totally. Whilst DreamGuy may not be able to accept that my message to him as detailed above was positive - I reiterate here again for all and sundry that I believe he is an otherwise good editor that was confronted by enormous frustration over the image he has been trying to delete. HOWEVER my job as I understand it is to assist in the protection of wikipedia. For those edits that relate to this matter - in my opinion DreamGuy needed to be blocked so that the process of deletion or otherwise of this image could be dealt with, without having to battle his continuing nose thumbing at the Good Faith decisions being made - especially with regards listing the matter at WP:FUR.
  5. I should end by also indicating that my becoming unavailable at the time I did had everything to do with it being 2.00am in the morning at my location (bed and pillow beckoned) and no other reasoning.

Again thank you all for your comments. Please let me know if anything at all needs further explaining. With best wishes --VS talk 02:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 Games

Ok, I'm sorry... Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I asked for the opinion of user:Shiggy, who edited the page recently. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macca

Cheers Our Kid! Couldn't have put it better meself! Vera, Chuck & Dave 22:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)