User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] re User:Philippe block of User:Victor64 and subsequent discussions

I noted a discussion relating to the above at ANI here. After a review I found the block sound, and the language in the summary appropriate. My full reasoning is at the above link. I fail to understand your rationale for contesting either, nor arguing the requirement of an undertaking to cease disruption as a pre-requisite for unblocking - especially since the blockee has made no visible attempt to engage in discussion. Also, I would comment that I find the text of this unacceptable, and I am concerned that a long standing editor would accuse another of lies. I consider this a personal attack and am giving you an official first warning for violation of the policy. Please moderate your terminology in future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now read the comments in the section a couple of places above. Notwithstanding, I still find your actions inappropriate. Replacing swathes of content with "This is retarded" is beyond a test, and was properly treated as such. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Personal attack? What on earth are you talking about? User:Philippe noted that the Victor64 account is a vandalism-only account. As less than half of the edits made by this user were vandalism, then by definition this wasn't a vandalism-only account. User:Philippe was made aware of this, but didn't retract what he said. He is lying, and knowingly. How is me simply observing the reality of the situation a personal attack? Surely if anyone is making a personal attack, it is User:Philippe Nfitz (talk) 06:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The reviewer was in error, it was not a cooling down block. It was a 24 hour block for violation of WP:NPA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me; I was indeed wrong to call it a 'cooling off block' rather than a preventative block, which is what it was. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
And yet my talk page got frozen because I asked about the 'cooling off block'. And I'm still clueless how anyone thinks I violated WP:NPA. I simply documented the facts. If someone doesn't tell the truth, how can I NOT point it out? Nfitz (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


If you have no idea why you were blocked, and yet independant observers confirmed that it was correctly applied with an appropriate tariff then you should perhaps consider that you are in error in your understanding of some basic WP policies. I would draw your attention specifically to Wikipedia:CIVIL#Examples, and to the last two examples in the first section. To term anothers statements as lies and them thus to be liars is a clear breach of that policy. I warned you, again specifically, that the terminology used was inappropriate. I suggested that you were permitted to make your points civilly. However, you chose to argue your understanding of "truth" and the freedom of speech - notwithstanding that this is a private website and that you were being informed of the rules governing conduct here.

When you, in your incorrect understanding of how things are around here, not only repeated the unsavoury language but attempted to justify how you were correct, the community wrong, and that deference should be made to your viewpoint I enacted a 1 day block. The reason was so that the effect of your disruption would be diminished. Instead of reviewing your actions, or apologising in the interests of future understanding, you continued to pursue your campaign of attempting to have the community accommodate your viewpoint - contrary to principles and practice. Thus your unblock requests were denied.

As well as WP:CIVIL, I think you should also study WP:NPA and WP:Etiquette before pursuing any remedies you think you are due. I think you will find that the codes of conduct expected here are higher than found in most of society. It is because WP is such a large community of such disparity that it can be easy to forget that the individual behind a different screen name may not share your views as to what is appropriate, or not. If everyone tries to be civil then the chance of offending someone is lessened. Obviously, sometimes incivility happens and admins - experienced editors who are familiar with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and who are tasked in allowing the community to function in builing the encyclopedia - will take action. Under the circumstances I was that admin. I gave you the warning, specified the problem, commented how you might redirect your assertions, and when you failed to heed the advice enacted a short block to stop the continuing policy violations.

I really hope that you take the time to read the linked policies, consider my comments, and see how your insistence in behaving in a manner inconsistent with the ethos of Wikipedia lead to the actions taken. I am surprised that someone who has edited for as long as you are not more familiar with how things are, but I am willing to answer any questions you may have regarding the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read these policies. And as far as I can tell, I have followed them. All my communication was perfectly civil. You say that the policy says I can't point out when people tell lies. But I don't see that in the policy. The only thing the policy says is that one must not tell lies. This is pretty black and white. Phillipe clearly, knowingly and with repitition, made a statement of fact that was not true. The English-language word for such a thing is a lie. Comment that someone is lying is no more being uncivil, than noting that a bus is late. It is merely a statement of fact. Saying someone is a dirty liar, a cheating liar, etc., in uncivil. There is nothing in anything I wrote that is not civil, and didn't meet. The policy says nothing about identifying lies. And I never called anyone a liar - I said they were lying - that is two completely different things.
The root problem here, is that we have an Admin who did a lie. By your read of the documents, I'm just not allowed to point this out. That makes no sense at all, and therefore can not be the correct interpretation. It's not like I was running around Wikipedia trashing him, left, right and centre. I followed the dispute procedures, slowly and civily. First I discussed it politely with him on his talk page, to try and resolve. Then, I was preparing to go to WP:ANI. For some reason he went there first, so I followed, and simply made my case. However as the whole root of the case, was a lie he made, I had to point it out. What else is one to do? Nfitz (talk) 08:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It's been almost a fortnight, and there is no response to this. I'd like to avoid dispute resolution and arbitration. I feel your block was unjustified. Nfitz (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I note that you were absent between 12 - 19 March, while I was on wikibreak over the Easter holidays. Even if I were inclined (see follows) there was little opportunity for communication. That said, I have no interest in further attempting to explain how Wikipedia works; I have told you how you acted inappropriately (and how the original block was appropriate) and you appear determined not to concede that your values or understandings are subrogated on this website to the rules that have been created here. You are unprepared to consider that your misunderstandings of how the rules are applied and explained by individual volunteers do not constitute "lies" and that the very term lie is one that is severely frowned upon within this community. You appear incapable of understanding these simple comments, and continue to use this insulting terminology in further comments. It does you and any point you are attempting to make no favours when you act as if the site hosts and those who try and police have no jurisdiction over your actions.
  • By all means take this to WP:ANI (the Arbitration Committee tend to require that some form of dispute resolution is attempted before they will consider taking a case) if you wish. I doubt that you will get any better a response than when appealing your block, since you do not seem to want to understand the rules, policies and guidelines that govern this place - and through which all your complaints have been appropriately dealt with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
After I was blocked, and my talk page was locked, I used the contact e-mail to challenge the block. The response I got from an admin that, was Personally, I don't think the block against you was valid either, and it's rather depressing to see how many admins refused your unblock request. I would have unblocked you early, but I guess it took more than 24 hours to dig deep enough into this to figure out what happened. So as far as I can conclude, I didn't act inappropriately. Also I'm not sure your post above is civil itself. I request you reread it and apply to yourself, the standards you ask others to follow. While I might well take your post today to ANI, for uncivility, I've been lead to believe that the next step in itself in your erroneous block of me is dispute resolution - before leading to arbitration - though I would accept an apology and simply ending this. Nfitz (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LessHeard vanU's invalid block of nfitz

I note that you archived the discussion about this with the edit summary "archiving per WP:DENY". Can you explain what that means? I don't see anything about archiving in WP:DENY. And WP:DENY is about vandalism - as no one has ever accused me of vandalism in my 4 years here, then I'm not what you are implying? Nfitz (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm just looking for an explanation of your thoughts here. I'm just not understanding. Obviously I'm not a troll - any suggestion that someone who has been editing here for 4 years is a troll simply because they agree with other Admins, rather than you, would be most uncivil. Nfitz (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You have already received my thoughts, per the above. I have no intention of re-iterating them. I shall continue to archive further comments by you to my talkpage, but will in future make no other summary other than that I am archiving. Please use any other venue available to you if you wish to pursue this matter, but I have said all I care to to you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay - though I think I'm required to have a dialogue with you before proceeding to other venues. However, the system confuses me. As an Admin, perhaps you can tell me what the process I should follow when an Administrator blocks someone without cause, and then implies they are a vandal and a troll without any evidence when they try to figure out why they were blocked? Nfitz (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
                                      • (the above was archived out of sequence (not sequins) ***********************

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia/Evidence#Response_to_User:LessHeard_vanU_evidence_request. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

SlimVirgin had no duty to consider the effect on a party who had brought up the matter in the first instance, in relation to the edit war.

Hi. I do not understand what this means. Can you explain it to me? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 03:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
In context, when reviewing a block and its circumstances the consideration of the effects of unblocking to any party that did not form part of the reason given for the block is irrelevent. Specifically, Zeraeph was blocked for editwarring with Mattisse on Psychopathy - the dispute with SandyGeorgia had formed no part of that decision. As it was, SandyGeorgia was the party which bought the matter of the relationship between her and Zeraeph into the content dispute. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Addendum, this may or may not have been SlimVirgins reason for unblocking - she comments only on the vandalism on Zeraeph's talkpage - but is my response to accusations that unblocking Zeraeph re-opened the opportunity for attacks on SandyGeorgia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm still not following your seemingly evasive language. Forgive me, but I have a penchant for clear, unambiguous speech. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. BTW, I have sent you an e-mail with diffs concerning your last request. —Viriditas | Talk 10:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for sending the diffs; I will respond when I have had an opportunity to study them.
I'm sorry that people have difficulty in understanding my language, so I will try to be clearer by using an example - if my sysop privileges were removed for a period because of poor decisions relating to this case, the effect on another editor who is vandaling articles which I have been previously patrolling should have no bearing on the decision to return the mop to me. Simply, Zeraeph was not blocked for abusing SandyGeorgia - which in this matter occurred after the block was imposed, following a post by SandyGeorgia - but for edit warring. The decision to reverse the edit-warring sanction need not consider the different, if not unrelated, matters that subsequently arose.
I'm afraid that this is the best I can do to explain myself. If you are still having problems with my prose I would respectfully suggest you have someone else look over my responses and see if they can explain my position better. I do not wish to repeat the misunderstandings that became apparent in our last discussion. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
How does that address (13)? You're changing the subject. To bring you back on track, the subject of (13) is the bottom of User_talk:Zeraeph/Archive3, especially all the content above SlimVirgin's section titled "Various", where she lifts the unblock, claiming "I don't know what this is about". Clearly, looking up at the previous sections shows an astounding, unbelievable number of personal attacks directed at other editors, including an attack upon an administrator - and an absolute refusal by Zeraeph to acknowledge any responsibility for her actions. If you honestly are telling me that an unblock was justified by SlimVirgin at 11:29, 28 December 2007 based on what you see just hours before, then you are avoiding the issue. Between 07:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC) and 09:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC), Zeraeph wrote:
"Mikka, it is my sincerely held belief that you should be de-sysopped for banning me for 28 days at all. The editor breaking the rules and continuing to do so without censure was, in fact User:Mattisse...You blocked me because you are afraid of User:SandyGeorgia and her clique, not because I did anything wrong...User:SandyGeorgia breathing down my neck and hobbling me at every turn, making me a "soft target" for other bullies like User:Psychonaut."
Now back to the topic: 13) Given that Zeraeph had posted recent and obvious personal attacks on her own user talk, SlimVirgin's unblock of Zeraph was unjustified. At a minimum, the unblocking admin should have investigated plainly visible indications of disruptive behaviour.
SlimVirgin unblocked Zeraeph at 11:29, 28 December 2007. Why? —Viriditas | Talk 10:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
You will have to ask SlimVirgin those questions. My point is; that the circumstances of the block are the primary considerations for investigating and varying any sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and those circumstances include official policy relating to editors who abuse block appeals: "A minority of editors who are blocked use these privileges poorly, for personal attack or to play games and make a point. Inevitably the response to such actions is simple - editing access is blocked in its entirety and without further discussion, whereas if the user had been responsible and reasonable, an entirely different result might well have happened....Users who are blocked are asked to use this as a chance to reflect, an opportunity to show their understanding and ability to act responsibly, and a period of time to let the matter pass and be learned from." Zeraeph was actively and knowingly engaged in abusing the unblock process, did not use the block to reflect on her behavior or learn from it, used her time to continue making personal attacks on her user page, and visited Wikipedia Review's forum to continue the attacks. After SlimVirgin unblocked, Zeraeph went straight back to disruptive editing and personal attacks onwiki. How did the unblock benefit the community and what did it attempt to achieve based on the in interim period between the block and the unblock? It is the responsibility of the unblocking administrator to be fully cognizant of WP:APPEAL. —Viriditas | Talk 11:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I was not the unblocking admin, and I cannot answer for her. I am now aware SlimVirgin did comment that she had been in contact with Zeraeph before deciding to unblock, but I do not know the nature of this discussion. I am also aware that Zeraeph did start to remove some of her comments on her talkpage - but I obviously cannot determine whether she was intending to remove that which related to SandyGeorgia. All that I am aware of is that Zeraeph did not edit her talkpage from 06:18 on 13.12.07, until she was unblocked 13 days later. The attacks had therefore ceased.
I was unaware that Zeraeph was unblocked until I saw the discussion at WP:ANI - I had not been reviewing the matter since Zeraeph was blocked whilst I was away (sleeping) from WP and my dispute resolution help was no longer needed, I was unaware of the attacks until I saw the ANI thread, I returned to Zeraeph's talkpage to offer my continued assistance - and then to admonish her for her return to edit warring. The debate regarding Zeraeph's unblock was already well under way when I became aware of it. I was uncertain of SlimVirgins position in relation in regard of the unblock - sometimes an admin will use the sysop tools by request when they have had no previous input in a matter, simply enacting consensus - which is why I used such careful language in my initial approach to her. When the communities concerns became apparent I supported the request for Arbitration. I formulated my full understanding of the situation, including Zeraephs poor behaviour after the block, while compiling my evidence.
Again, please refer any query regarding SlimVirgins reasons to her. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your comments entirely LH vU, and this is what I said on the arbitration's talk page. That particular block was nothing to do with SandyGeorgia, for her to be warned Z was being unblocked.Merkinsmum 21:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) "The debate regarding Zeraeph's unblock was already well under way when I became aware of it." OK, and the debate was already well underway by the time Sandy posted regarding it. You were aware of it, in fact, before she was. You have written: "SandyGeorgia and her colleagues, however, decided to treat the unblock as a question of permitting an editor responsible for personal attacks to continue that behaviour, and started a discussion at WP:ANI decrying the block and attempting to start the process of a community ban." Sandy did not start the AN/I discussion. That's a plain fact. (And I don't know what "SandyGeorgia and her colleagues" means.) Nor did she or anyone mention a community ban on AN/I when the thread first started; there was no coordination to that end. I urge you to retract or amend the statement. Marskell (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

FYI... Many of the diffs linked to LHvU timeline have been deleted due to the removal of Zeraeph's talk page, however, the actual comments are still available in her talk archive. —Viriditas | Talk 13:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] uk meet

did you know of Wikipedia:Meetup/Manchester_3 ? I appreciate it's quite a way from you, though. Merkinsmum 21:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I regret having to bother you with this matter again

Mark thanks for your note. For what its worth (and that might'nt be a lot!)I don't think you language was 'extremely offensive', and given the circumanstances and tone of the interaction between us to that point, it was quite restrained. I apologise again for my poor behaviour. Ceoil (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of forgive, forget, thats life, move on, I posted this. I treated you and DGG harshly, there is no question of that and the irony of your presence in my block record from 2 weeks ago isn't lost on me. Is it ironic? Is it all connected? Dunno. Lets move on. Someday maybe we'll have a conversation that does not contain the words 'fuck', 'tard', or 'apology'; but until then, no hard feelings. Ceoil (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you :)

Thanks for blocking that vandal. I'll keep an eye out and make sure to tell you if they do another personal attack again. Regards! FamicomJL (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lommemannen

Hi i was reading this [1] BBC story about the Lommemeannen and thought it would make a good new wikipage, and checking the deletion log found one had been speeded by you for being and attack article. I have no idea how bad that article was (i did not write it) but could you talk to me about re-creating this article in a way as to avoid it being an attack article. (Hypnosadist) 07:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, yes could you undelete it and remove the last line as well that mentions the supposed name of the lommemannen as that is unsupported by the BBC source i gave you and is a privacy violation (the address) as well. I'm off to bed so i wont be able to work on the article for 12ish hours so use your judgement and i agree with your call of speedying the original article. (Hypnosadist) 14:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Now a proper wikipage, thanks! (Hypnosadist) 00:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zeraeph

This arbitration has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The case was renamed upon closing from "Zeraeph-SandyGeorgia" to "Zeraeph". User:Zeraeph, including and socks and future accounts, is banned from Wikipedia for one year. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, your attention is directed to item 1 here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeraeph/Proposed_decision#Discussion_by_Arbitrators. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough; I see FT2 didn't correct the misunderstanding regarding previous incidents, perhaps not seeing my note, but it isn't important.LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

... on my talk page. Thanks and noted. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

cool LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) 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.

[edit] I would like to send you an email

But I notice your caveat. You have elsewhere requested information which I'd like to provide, but not if it involves the dissemination of my email, or perhaps my identity. Please indicate here, on my talkpage, or via email if you would consider suspending your disclaimer in this present instance (and any email I receive from you will remain in strict confidence, unless it contemplates murderousness). Thanks. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 01:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not divulge your identity or ip address, since that is beyond what Wikipedia allows except in certain situations (by the use of Checkuser re ip addresses - and I do not have that level of trust) and I do not set myself above that. Providing there is nothing in the email that is illegal, or is against the rules and policies of Wikipedia, then there is no reason why I would disseminate the contents. Please be assured that it is not my intention to break confidences as a matter of course, but only that I am permitted to republish any correspondence or part of any correspondence in extreme circumstances where the benefit to the community outweighs the expectation of privacy. I hope the above reassures you sufficiently to contact me. If you require further clarification then please ask. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, EeMail 4U. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 03:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] redirect / deletion

I've weighed in on your discussion @ User talk:Lar. - Revolving Bugbear 23:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Missy Hyatt

I agree. It is inappropriate to include contentious material in biographies of living people... but what I said was on a talk page and the comment was entirely informal. Did you research this matter properly?--EndlessDan 20:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your message and help in dealing with the "block evader" (for want of a better expression). I just wanted to check though about User:QPRsteve, will they also be banned as a sockpuppet of User:JackQPR as User:QPRben was too? cheers, ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked QPRsteve for sock abuse. I haven't templated the talkpage since it hasn't been previously created. QPRben was previously indef blocked. If there is a special sockblock I missed it, but the result is the same.LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have a suspicion that User:Youf123 is a new sock puppet of JackQPR's. Jimbo[online] 09:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
...and another JDT2k8 Jimbo[online] 17:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
..another Special:Contributions/QPRlLAD Jimbo[online] 12:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
...two more, User:Jackt123/User:QPRlad, is there a way of permanently banning him - or a lengthy ban? Jimbo[online] 17:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

He's back User:Bengio. Still making the same edits as before Jimbo[online] 14:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN

Hah, I didn't even notice it was you. Nothing personal, I promise. We seem to know all the same people ;)

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 22:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

Thanks. I didn't know that option was in the prefs, I've turned it on. I recall reading very long ago minor edits were ok without summaries but these days I'm tending to agree it's more helpful to always use them, so I shall. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Great. I look forward to sharing the mop pail. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correction?

Woooooooh, am I glad you weren't involved in the recent ArbCom I was a party to! ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What'd I do? - Revolving Bugbear 15:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
re ScienceApologist - I was correctly reprimanded for use of the anglo saxon vernacular. I assume that was SA's violation? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
He has an ArbCom restriction against incivility. I don't have a problem with profanity, but three incidents in one day, including trying to bully another user (who was giving a good-faith warning) off his talk page, is clearly over the line. - Revolving Bugbear 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, I told two different editors to f*ck off with a 10 month gap between the two events - the first time was pre-admin - and got reminded on appropriate conduct as part of the findings of a recent ArbCom. Re your actions per SA, I realise that you are simply applying the conditions in a different finding - I was just joshing on our last couple of interactons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
We've all said things that are questionable here -- I'm reminded of a time I said another user was being "disgustingly offensive" ;) And yes, I realize you were just messing around re SA, but I wanted to make sure there was no doubt, since the subject has already come up on AN/I.
It does seem that we're seeing a lot of each other lately. I shall do my best to make sure you're around for my next major cock-up ;) - Revolving Bugbear 16:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments at ANI

I'm glad to see you self reverted but honestly don't you think its a little insensitive to advocated desysopping him?? Talk about kicking while he is down.... Spartaz Humbug! 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about protecting Wikipedia when a user with certain community given powers may be emotionally distressed, and that the removal of the tools is only for that period while these issues may be effecting him. JzG has a history of having his decisions/actions being less than appreciated by sections of the community; disallowing him the potential of seriously compromising his standing while he may be particularly vulnerable might be considered being helpful, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we will agree on this then. Spartaz Humbug! 23:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thx


I have the mop but can you search the RFA meeting shown to find the bucket?
I have the mop but can you search the RFA meeting shown to find the bucket?
 Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 60/0/0 yesterday!

I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet).

Thanks again, Victuallers (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 Dr Johnson - Dictionary writer Boswell - Biographer Sir Joshua Reynolds - Host David Garrick - actor Edmund Burke - statesman Pasqual Paoli - Corsican patriot Charles Burney - music historian Thomas Warton - poet laureate Oliver Goldsmith - writer My co-nominator - majestically hot water? A bucket for you My nominator - a seasonal female married rabbit servant - poss. Francis Barber Play about ... can you find the bucket?
An early RFA meeting to decide if Victuallers can be included as a sysop - use cursor to identify.
An early RFA meeting to decide if Victuallers can be included as a sysop - use cursor to identify.

[edit] My RfA

I hate to sound like a dick, but could you please reword your question, it's kind of confusing. Cheers, LAX 22:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Have done. A hint; it is regarding Conflict of Interest, and follows your response to Q.1. Cheers, and best wishes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, when you say delete do you mean revert, and when you say sanction do you mean block? Cheers, LAX 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup. ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. Cheers, LAX 22:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've answered your question in my RfA. Cheers, LAX 16:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
BTW, thank you for supporting me. I really appreciate it. Cheers, LAX 22:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
'kay! LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of hooligan firms

Hi just wondering if you could have a look again at the above article please? The user JackQPR is paying no attention whatsoever to the block nor the blocks of the various sockpuppets they have created recently since the block and it seems at the moment that every day they are back again with a new username doing exactly the same edit. The latest username being QPRILAD. Is there any chance of the article getting a longer protection from allowing new users and IP users from editing as it does look as though this will not go away and that they are determind to create new usernames. Perhaps they seem to think no-one will notice or that in the end will back down. But as you will see from the edit history it is getting ridiculous now. Two of the sockpuppets, QPRILAD and QPTsteve don't seem to have been blocked as sockpuppets, though the others (including JDT2k8,Youf123 and QPRben have been blocked in the last few days. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi sorry for the second message. However another article I have on my watchlist has been vandalised by what seems to be yet another sockpuppet of JackQPR - User:Ben10023, an old account but exactly the same edit as on the List of hooligans article and surely not a co-incidence that "ben" appears in the username as another sockpuppet is QPRben. I have no idea how to approach all this and would appreciate your help please on the above and this? Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages. No surprise really but today there are yet another two new sockpuppet accounts from the same user. Today it is User:Jackt123 and User:QPRlad with exactly the same edits on exactly the same article. The article really could do with being semi-protected ASAP from new and IP users, as a number of other users are now just using the reverting method of dealing with it which is resulting in numerous reverts each day as both the sockpuppet and them get involved in a daily edit war. If you don't mind I would prefer it if you could bring it up at the Admin Noticeboard/Incidents as I am unsure as to how best to word it all so that it is dealt with correctly. Would that be ok with you?

This is a list of all the various accounts that I know of so far (there may well be more). Some of them seem to have been blocked already, others there is nothing noted on their user page. Plus I noticed that on one of the accounts at the bottom of the page it was listed in a "sockpuppets of JackQPR" category. However it was "redlinked" so presumably the page itself doesn't exist yet?

There are probaly more accounts as at least one of them (Ben10023) is an old account from about a year ago which they used and he also edited at least once while logged out as an IP user. Plus he doesn't exactly make any attempt to hide as on the QPRlad userpage he has added"My name is Jack". Thanks. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That is excellent, thanks for your help. Just a pity it has had to come to this though as the user could have been a useful editor if he had taken on board the advice given to him, but he was/is totally unwilling to communicate at all.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a thank you note

Thanks for participating in my RfA!
Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been wonderful, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Working in the background

The Invisible Barnstar
For being one of the folks who does the scut work without expecting plaudits or groveling, and with respect for those whose path you cross. Risker (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seemed to me that you had some good points in your recent self-described "rant" on another editor's (extremely watchlisted) talk page. And let's just say you still have enough of the "editor" in you to treat non-admins with the common touch rather than noblesse oblige. It *is* appreciated. Risker (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment at WP:AN

Thanks for your comment about the "Three Strike" proposal at WP:AN. As a result of your comment, I have created a subpage within my userspace with this proposal on. The page in question can be found here. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've answered your concern. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Oh dear...

You know who's fault that is? Silly WP:HUGGLE... counting the warnings rather than detecting their levels... Sorry about that... I'll shoot through his contribs and see if he does anything else. Cheers for telling me! ScarianCall me Pat 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Rfa

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User Blaxthos

Rather than having Blaxthos's back and protecting his page from LEGITIMATE constructive criticims to which he has become increasingly inured, why not suspend him for falsely accusing that guy (69.244.181.184 )of being a sockpuppet of Rynort?

Blaxthos guessed. And he guessed wrong. But because YOU and others have enabled him, he has been empowered to ABUSE other editors.

He falsely accused someone of being a sockpuppet of Rynort.

I say put up or shut up.

But Blaxthos can't put up, because the charges are absurd and patently untrue.

Why aren't you holding him accountable?

In the spirit of making wikipedia the BEST online encyclopedia, I respectfully submit that you SUSPEND the POV-pushing Blaxthos for a period of no more than two years and not less than 180 days.

Thanks!

Ps His POV pushing is LEGENDARY. His MO is not particularly cryptic or inventive. Essentially, he locates conservative editors, baits them, then GAMES the system to get them caught in a prosecutable grievance upon which they are threatened with an RfA 68.40.200.77 (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

After reading this, this, and especially this, I must confess to a certain lack of sympathy regarding your concerns with this editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amythystdragon block

Hi,

I was about to block User:Amythystdragon and you won by seconds. The 31 hours you gave them surprised me, as I see it as a vandalism account. They have only been on for two days and have blanked the same page repeatedly. As a fairly new admin I'd like to hear your rationale for such a short block, so I can add it to my experience for future similar situations. Thx. -- Alexf42 21:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Caveat message

I like your Caveat message. Do you mind if I steal it for my Talk page? BTW, you have "to to" repeated in it. -- Alexf42 21:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New pages list

Thanks for the heads-up. Your workaround pretty much describes the way I actually work (actually, I use tabbed browser pages, but it's the same principle) - I was just hoping that WP had some nifty widget to get round it :-) CultureDrone (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks from Happy-melon

I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. I can't say I do know who you are, and I don't think we've ever bumped into each other before, but your comment and support was very much appreciated. Happy‑melon 10:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Thank you, yeah, I understand. Just got a bit tired of Rob picking fights with me. --LN3000 (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Maulwurfel

Despite your unblock, this user persits in removing speedy delete tags from Men of War. He also has blanked his talk page, in an apparent effort to hide his previous warnings and blocks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I see now that I got ome timestamps flip-flopped. Sorry about that. Time for a trip to the eye doctor, I think. Thanks. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of new post in "resolved" ANI thread

I've made a point about custom edit summaries in an ANI thread. See here. Notification left because the thread was previously marked "resolved" (I've removed the resolved label as I felt the issue is not resolved). Comments would be welcomed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User LessHeard VanU. I am watching Andy for he personally attacked me. I am watching him and not threatening him. I am not harass him nor am i attempting too. If you read my post on the page you post above you will see that I propose that we (andy and I) proceed down the dispute resolution process. I also reply to accusations of being a sub-troll. I do not think this constitutes a threat I think this constitutes a motion to follow the official wikipedia rules to resolve a dispute. If you think posting that i am watching a user and I post a reply and a how-to resolve our differences constitutes harass I think you should reconsider. Otherwise, you are giving users who are in the wrong free rein. Please watch me, for if no one is watching the watchers' we are all in the wrong. Dbmoodb (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC) I would like an answer on my talk page to my query regarding what you believe to be a potential case of harassment. :) thank you. Dbmoodb (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 202.95.200.17

Hi - yeah, I was just looking at today's edits, which actually appeared constructive (though I'm no airline expert). I've no problem with the block if there's a longer term pattern of disruption. Best, Black Kite 12:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Notability of March (band)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on March (band), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because March (band) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting March (band), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. And I have turned on the force edit summary option now, I didn't even know it existed until someone pointed it out to me. Melesse (talk) 04:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Melesse (talk) 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.

[edit] JackQPR

Hi there, remember JackQPR and his numerous accounts on List of hooligan firms? Well he is back again this time as JackT14 (talk • contribs • logs)

with exactly the same edits. He's not exactly subtle or trying to hide himself, but it is presumably yet another sockpuppet of his and I hope you don't mind my informing you and asking if you could deal with it? Thank you.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the suggestion - I have shamelessly nicked the box off the top of this page and stuck it on my talk and user pages. DuncanHill (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I.P. with the limited vocabulary

Yeah, a selective restoration would have been appropriate - was that what you were in the process of doing? If so, I'm sorry for interrupting it (although your deletion summary didn't indicate that that's what was going on). I wouldn't object to that revision being deleted now, although I don't particularly think it's necessary, either. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think it matters, so I won't. But if you want to, you have my formal blessing (i.e. it won't be WP:WHEEL). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Could you help at Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_(North_America)#February_11

Can something be done about this? TJ continues to announce what games are coming out, but the information isn't from a reliable source. Also, the information that he posts isn't added to the article for that same reason. So he is basically using the talk page as a way to promote a bad source, as well as making it an announcement board for himself and a few others. These same people are the ones that were posting other off topic comments until recently. They've stopped since the reminder you posted, with the exception of TJ's most recent post. We can wait and see, but I can bet people will chime in with their off topic comments. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

If you check out the edit history of List of Virtual Console games (North America), you will see two IP editors that used the information that TJ posted. TJ's post on the talk page seems to be encouraging people to add the information as if it was reliable and accurate. In my opinion, if the talk page section wasn't there... IP editors wouldn't be adding the information in. If this continues (next week for example), can the sections made by TJ be stopped finally? The problem is with the talk page, which should be prevented in the first place. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IRC guidelines

Hi :-) Since the case is closed I will not be commenting on the proposed decision talk for much longer. The topic is important and I plan to start a discussion on Monday about forming a working group to develop some guidelines. Until then feel free to make your thoughts known on my talk page. Have a nice day. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] archive creation on my talk page

could you look at my talk page to see if I made the archive correctly? Abridged talk 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Agent007ravi (single purpose account?)

Agent007ravi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has done quite a number on several Dragon Ball pages; this user went around and disruptively placed unsourced data. Since you've dealt with him/her before, what do you think should be done? Please reply on your talk page. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the account as disruptive. If they undertake to discuss the changes they want, and to provide sources for their different information, then they can be unblocked. Otherwise they are simply creating too much distraction and effort on the part of others. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Agent007ravi is requesting to be unblocked. Your comments on his/her talk page would be appreciated. - auburnpilot talk 21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ta. Wilco. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Twicemost

Hi there. I think Twicemost (talk · contribs) is willing to apologize for and retract his threats which led to his indefinite block. Would you be willing to consider shortening it to a week or so? MastCell Talk 19:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick heads-up - Twicemost (talk · contribs) has apologized, promised no further threats, and agreed to abide by WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, etc. I've therefore unblocked him. Thanks for your feedback. MastCell Talk 23:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: your message on Durova's Talk Page

Do you mind if I email you? SirFozzie (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hal Turner

Can you up the protection to full and indef? Seeing as it's a BLP blanking... Will (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbcomments

Ah, O.K. I was just thinking that my response was probably unnecessary because -- from what little I've seen -- arbcom doesn't actually ever use language that strong in decisions. (And don't take my style of dashes as an indication of anything!) Noroton (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emails

You have the date and times of the emails? Neat! Send them over and I'll make a chart ASAP. Cool Hand Luke 02:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Maria215

Hello, Thank you for your suggestions. I've joined wikipedia to help the artist revise his wiki page. The information that is shown presently is what i've been given to post directly. I agree that it much resembles a cv so would you be able to guide me along in fixing it? He wants to keep about all the lists of collections, books, exhibitions and bibliography so is there a way to make it more presentable or do you think some of it is not helpful and not necessary? Any suggestions would be amazing and extremely helpful! Being from an art and design field myself, i'm not going to lie, editing in wikipedia seems almost like a completely different language! Maria215 (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU asked me for advice on this: but I can't fault the advice he has already posted. If you are acting directly on behalf of the artist, you need to be especially cautious about conflict of interest issues. And I agree that the "CV" style isn't at all appropriate.
I recommend raising this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. They do a lot of this type of collaboration on development, and would be able to guide you on what formats are customary. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for both of your suggestions. After going through the Wikipedia tutorial and checking out a number of different artist's pages, I was able to come up with an outline that would satisfy both ends. I'm just now waiting for the material and references to base it on to revise the page. Thanks again. Maria215 (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis of A Shropshire Lad in Alfred Edward Housman

I would tend to revert any deletion made without a reason being provided, and the IP involved seemed to have a history of unconstructive edits. Even if it was well-intentioned, (s)he shouldn't really have left the "Poetry" section beginning with a section on "Later collections"! However, you're right to point out that the ASL section has problems. The idea that an in-character synopsis of the whole collection can be written in continuous prose seems questionable, and the result feels to me like an original creative response to the poems. I'd have no objection if someone removed the Synopsis or replaced it with something more suitable. EALacey (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and pruned the section myself. I hope that's an improvement. EALacey (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi LHvU, I was the author of the offending synopsis. I have read the correspondence between you and EALacey and left him a message, so I leave it for you too. Some of the surrounding material which has since been edited was accumulated from earlier editors and I kept it in in order not to wantonly delete the contributions of others - not worried about that. So far as the Synopsis is concerned, it is not so subjective as you have thought: each sentence or half-sentence corresponds to a poem, in sequence, so that the whole paragraph is a true synopsis of the content of the volume of poems. To say it should be replaced by something more suitable is in fact imposing a subjective judgement - the idea that the whole sequence is 'in character' (as EAL says above) is certainly contained in the title of the whole collection, even if EAL has not thought of that. What I wrote to him is more about the procedure for making changes to it, hence I enclose my comments below:

Hi, I am the author of the Shropshire Lad synopsis. I know that you first reinstated it after an anonymous editor removed it, have thought about whether to delete it, and have acted in good faith. However it would be better, if you think it should go, to follow normal procedure for so large an edit and raise the matter in discussion (and, not with a guillotine deadline in your favour) on the Article Discussion Page. That is the normal procedure for courtesy and good manners between editors in WP, as you, an editor of 2 years standing, probably know. The source for the synopsis is, like any literary work article, the work itself, and the themes are presented in sequence as they appear in the poems. Hence it is quite justifiable as encyclopedic content, and is not Original Research any more than any reading of any literary work. I'm quite happy to discuss this more, and would have been happy before, but I am not happy that you and the guy above have made this major deletion without consulting in the usual way, and preferably contacting me as the contributing editor. So I have reinstated it now give you the opportunity to present your case. Hope we can sort this out, I am here most days and am not unreasonable, Eebahgum (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I should be glad if either of you wished to reply at my user talk. With good wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Malamockq

Re Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Malamockq.2C_User:Asams10.2C_and_Deletion_of_comments_on_discussion_board. I disagree with the block. M has been irritating, but hardly deserves 31h, unless there is some incivility which I've missed. Best to reply at ANI William M. Connolley (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I've had my fill of vandal fighting for today. Thanks for ridding Wikipedia of one more. Mkdwtalk 10:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admin recall

Less, your handling of the incident seen here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Malamockq.2C_User:Asams10.2C_and_Deletion_of_comments_on_discussion_board. was done poorly. I was unfairly banned, and administrator, User:William M. Connolley felt that way as well. You jumped to conclusions, and did not investigate the matter properly. Furthermore, after comments were made that my banning was unfair, you never followed up on those arguments, and merely ignored the incident. I do not feel you are well suited to be an administrator. I am opening the discussion to the recall of you as an admin as per, Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall Malamockq (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

As per your comment, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMalamockq&diff=193744409&oldid=193714655 I have added you to the open to recall category. Malamockq (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why did you add that comment to my talk page? Malamockq (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't my question. I asked you why did you add that comment to my talk page. Malamockq (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Random note

I just wanted to drop by and say hi. Your encouragement to me in the past has had lasting impact; I think about it often, even in such minor things as editing my own user page, and I felt like I ought to let you know. :) Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

I've gone ahead and added the confirmed sock. Hope I did that right; the rules have changed over the years! Thanks for the block and thanks for the update. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: re Agent007ravi

Had to run an errand so I apologize for not responding sooner. IMHO, I think we're dealing with a disruptive account whose only purpose is to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. He's been given too many warnings, blocks, etc., and shows no sign of a change in behaviour. Thoughts? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I differ in that, per WP:AGF, I believe that the editor is an overkeen contributor with no apparent desire to conform to WP practices - not out of malice but because they don't care to - and who doesn't distinguish between fact and wishful thinking. However, the result is the same - the encyclopedia suffers. I would prefer that Mike Rosoft takes the lead here, as he seems to have at least some communication with the editor, but if Agent007ravi's editing gets too vexatious then take it too AIV noting both the final warning and recent ending of block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you see his newest warning? I don't know how to get my point across to this guy. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You hit the nail on the head. Looks like he's currently edit warring on London Borough of Redbridge‎. Give a {{3rr}} warning as well? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The timeshift

No, alas the Indian timeshift is seen only in MM's edits, since he was the only editor editing at the time (Oct 2006). It is adduced that MM=GW since GW was in India and GW and MM both mention Varkala in different venues. But that's it. The smoking gun (and it is a lesser one) that SH = MM is that they both quit editing nearly completely in Nov. 2007 (really beginning in late Oct), a year latter. Neither has an explanation. If they're not socks, they're joined at the hip and vaccation together. That plus the fact that edit diff comment tics tie SH and MM together without any a priori assumptions, pretty much makes that case. And lastly, MM has socked as LE, so we know he's capable of it. SBHarris 01:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Locke Cole unblock

Hi LessHeard vanU. I notice you blocked Locke Cole (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for this. I think if he were to agree to remove the statement, and to pledge not to do so again, an unblock would be reasonable. Would you be okay with this? I'm happy to speak to LC about it, but not until you indicate it's okay. Thanks. Neıl ☎ 11:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's great, thank you. Neıl ☎ 13:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it was worth a try. Neıl ☎ 09:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: AIV report

I am not familiar with the Simpsons. I saw what he wrote and thought it was vandalism. When I saw he already had a final warning, I reported him. J.delanoygabsadds 22:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding and the laugh! --Slp1 (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Sooo... How do I remove the report? It's already gone. I'm confused. Don't worry: That's a normal condition with me. J.delanoygabsadds 16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was, in your original post, you asked me to remove the AIV report, but it was already gone, so I didn't know if you wanted me to personally retract my report. Sorry. J.delanoygabsadds 17:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AEH

Thanks for your input. I was getting my retaliation in first, as the Irish say, but you beat me to it, gosh durn it.(!) I'll send a note to EALacey to let him know and we can wax wordsome over the matter. Eebahgum (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, and without offence of any kind intended, I do think it is a little unfair of you to have placed what was written on the footing that anyone at all could delete it without my having any right to come back to reinstate it, overriding the 3rr rule. The original deletion was, after all, done without any discussion except between you and one other editor, when you could easily have brought me in to discuss. And after reinstating it I moved it, under my own steam, to the present article, in order to meet your feelings about its presence in the former. I am not in special need of being disciplined.
I cannot see that a résumé of the themes of the individual poems really amounts to original research. I have now added specific sources for each, and have lightly edited to remove (largely) the suggestion of continuity. There were no inline references in the A. E. Housman article before I created the reflist and put them in, so I am not a non-referencer (see recent work on Charles Santley, for instance).
The synopsis is now the only referenced part of the article on A Shropshire Lad. But your threat of sanction now hangs over precisely this part. What about all that quoted poetry in the previous section, and all the really unreferenced material in this article, much of which is verbatim duplication from the A E H article? Sorry to whinge, but this was never a casual edit, and if you change the ground rules then I think (if this is cricket) that you might justify your stance about original research more fully before wielding your administrative whangee - please? Eebahgum (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)