User talk:LessHeard vanU

Thanks

Thanks for reviewing my SSP on Fadulj. Took me forever to sift through all that, and it went unaddressed for a month or so, so I'm happy to have it dealt with :) -Freqsh0 (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

sockpuppetry case

I just wanted to left you a comment regarding the following statement "I am reviewing the case for sockpuppetry as part of my WP responsibilities; you are perhaps fortunate that I decided to comment rather than block you for abuse of policy and write up my conclusions."

I know you are an administrator, but should not you first hear the explanation from the accused? You did look on the evidence at hand, and concluded that I am running some ridiculous IP scheme here. If were guilty of sockpuppetry or whatever Koalorka accused me of, I would definitely say so. According to you, I am some sort of master of proxy with ability to use different IP addresses from countries around the globe to vandalize this amazing learning tool... If so, what makes you think that I will not be able to just switch to another IP tomorrow and keep on editing. Also, I would probably not care to respond to your "conclusions." The truth is I am a woman in 50s and know very little about IT. Definitely, I am not some phantom hacker or computer wizard.

As an administrator on this encyclopedia you have responsibility and you should act in the best interest of Wikipedia. There is NO sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry here. I certainly hope that any decision made will be to the benefit of Wikipedia and not some ridiculous ego trip! Best Maria Mariaflores1955 (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The evidence, that you have "colleagues" who support your viewpoint per your own admission and that there are more than the one ip that is your non-logged in address whose only contributions are to remove the image you object to, is to me overwhelming. Since these other ip's are possibly your colleagues then perhaps one or more of them are able to use proxies, and we are both of an era (I am in my 50th year) where being female is not recognised as being a reason for having a lack of knowledge was at the forefront of our formative years. All I can do is look at the evidence presented and, as I said, it appears to me to be conclusive. I would point out that, in this matter, I was content to merely comment and not to act to see if another sysop more experienced agrees with me or not. I was content to leave my impressions for another to judge, so I do not think that my ego is any danger of unbalancing the encyclopedia in this matter, and only responded to your comments in turn. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall agree to disagree with you conclusions. I have no control over my friend and in the end it was him who contacted me not the other way around. If he has elected not to log in to make revisions that is also his choice. Also to clarify, by no means I believe that women are not brilliant IT operatives, my point is that I am not one... that is all. I appreciate your response and the time you invested in this matter. I still hope that another administrator will see the petty and petulant nature of Koalorka's complaint and that this matter will end up well for me. In closing, allow me to wish you many more productive years at Wikipedia. Maria Mariaflores1955 (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the tone of the above, it may help your case to link to it at the SSP page. I don't mind agreeing to disagree, and I think you may be wise to advise your friend how their help has been interpreted in this matter and request that they do not do so again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:NPOV editing

I understand you, and I'd appreciate the review u'll make to my edits. Thank you. Yamanam (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_87 and Dapi89

LessHeard,

I am sorry, the tone of THIS voice reflects your own actions and quality of judgemen (or should I say: Lack of same).

You have managed to fill me with contempt and I am generelly a very tolerant person.

How can you concider adding ONE line to an article vandalism?!!

Don't you think that you should look into the matter? Especially since the deletion is done by the by the anonymous Dapi89.

I am not in the habit of throwing myself on my knees to people who has corruptet their own authority by tyranni, so I am gonna make this short and sweet: Revoke your blocking of the users HenrikHansenDK1631 (me) and my college mate WW2historyBuff WITHOUT FURTER DELAY!!

Different people are using this the IP address 80.160.207.18 besides us, and even if the accusation of vandalism is true (which it is not) you can not block them all.

I have now looked in to the matter, and what has apparently triggered Dapi89 is that others besides us is disagreeing with him (80.198.48.60 not ours 80.160.207.18 (the 80.xxx.xxx.xxx segment is the main Danish ISP provider)), which is obviuosly a problem to him.

I asked him to argue for how a simple observation can qualify to be an "Original Research", and you know the rest. The log reflects the entry "reporting what is now blatant vandalism". I have deleted nothing. I am the victing of his deletions. So block him!!!

If you look in to the history of the page it is clearly reflected that he concider himself the supreme ruler of what is relevant, and what is not for this page.

Keep in mind, that in the end the blocking procedures of Wikipedia is at mercy of the users having the same IP address, and it can be changed within 24 hours. A lot faster than going through the rehabilitation procedures at Wikipedia as I have read them.

In the hope that you take a different course of action so I can return to my normal tone of voice!!

HenrikHansenDK1631

PS: Don't bother having this IP address blocked. It is dynamic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.129.75.129 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Er.... Thank you but no. Read WP:EDIT WAR, WP:MEAT and WP:SOCK before committing your charmingly inept English to prosperity. Having the Stuka's "Jericho Trumpet" referenced in later popular culture is as important as the fact that WWII broadcasts by the BBC to the French Resistance used the first five bars of Beethoven's 5th Symphony would be in that article; true, but of very little importance with regard to the notability of the subject and something perhaps to be inserted into the later parts of the article - and not the opening paragraph. However, arguing semitics is pointless with someone or a group that is prepared to violate WP policy to place such an inane "fact" into the article. The named accounts will not be unblocked by me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Not late by the Julian calendar

May your year be a pleasant one, or at least may you forget quickly any unpleasantness, and may the sands of time never get in your shoes. And when you get to be this guy's age, may some young thing snuggle up to you and may you then understand that somewhat mysterious look in his eyes, and may that be a good thing, too. And watch out for the sand. -- Noroton (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

He even has my haircut...! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Betacommand

Hey there. I apologize for not leaving a note on your talk page. It was my impression that you were acting as a non-involved party (member of the body of admins) rather than as an involved admin, so I didn't see it as reducing your block, but rather reducing the block, which is why I didn't see it necessary to drop you a line. (Plus I figured you'd see it on Beta's talk page or AN.) Regardless, I was mistaken, and I apologize for that.

Moving beyond all of that, there seems to be a very mistaken impression that I was moving for an unblock of Beta. I wasn't, and I don't particularly know how this impression spread, but it did, and there's no reversing that. What I'm asking of you is to not unblock, but to reblock using a specified duration (45 days seems perfectly reasonable to me). My hope is that this time off will allow cooler heads to prevail and in a month and a half, Beta will be able to re-enter the community. I really see you as the only person able to change this block without a massive shitstorm. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted, since you provided it even if there was no burning requirement. I was involved in so much that it was my finger, but I tried to keep out of the subsequent arguments other than opposing the proposed ban. My position has been and remains that an indef block is the appropriate sanction for knowing disregard of policy (or, in this matter, restrictions) until as such time as the disputed action/position is retracted - and then it becomes null and void, and should be lifted. Once Betacommand acknowledges the priority of the restrictions and his past intransience then I am for lifting the block, whereas when a block is for a definite period all Betacommand needs do (if it isn't too long) is wait out the block and try not to get caught next time. There is no acknowledgement of past poor behaviour, and it is possible they will still maintain the line that policy outweighs restrictions if they get brought up again - and I don't think that that is good enough. Notwithstanding my views, I would of course unblock Betacommand should consensus arise that that is the agreed course of action and would be pleased to do so if it was regarded as appropriate, being the blocking admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears Beta has acknowledged past wrongdoings and has committed to seeking approval for any and all automated editing in the future here. Had you seen this? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not yet, I am crawling chronologically through my watchlist and am still reviewing stuff from a couple of hours back - ANI (yes, I have seen BC's talkpage) is usually one of the last so I will get there soonest... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

PediaPress

What is it you don't understand? DuncanHill (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, the relationship between PediaPress and the Foundation - and what or where is the most appropriate way they can define and notify the relationship (I agree with Jimbo that a userpage that looks like an advert is likely not the best). I also did not realise that the links provided in the original comment - which I only reviewed when this matter was brought up yesterday - should have provided an obvious link between PediaPress and WP (in fact, the original poster must have not either since they brought up the matter at WP:UAA originally). I don't really understand the technical links either (I don't use the js.notebook facility owing to lack of clue) but that doesn't mean I am unable to follow simple guidance notes - and I found a distinct lack of same in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is PediaPress agreed with the Foundation to develop software that sites which use mediawiki stuff can add. This software can be used to export articles as pdf or get printed books. The software has been added to some other Foundation sites already (such as Wikibooks), and is also used by Commonwealth of Learning, who run WikiEducator. When someone buys a printed book from them, some of the money goes to the Foundation (hopefully leading to Jimbo having to write fewer irritating personal messages to each and every one of the millions of people who read Wikipedia). I do agree that it would be better to have a page in Wikipedia space to explain it, rather than a userpage, but communication with editors is not one of the Foundation's strong points, alas. The press release was in 2007, and this is the first I had heard of it.

As to using the thing, just copy the code to your monobook.js, empty your cache, and "add article" and "my collection" appear at the top right of any page. When you click "add article", the article is added to your collection. Clicking "your collection" brings up the list of articles you have selected, and you can then change the order of them, give the collection a title, and get them exported as a pdf file (for free) or get it printed and bound (for a price, seems slightly less than other print-on-demand services). The instructions could be clearer, but considering they have been written by a German they aren't too horrendous (I understood them!)

On sites such as Wikibooks you don't have to bother with the monobook.js, because the software has been enabled already (this is the "collection extension" that PediaPress mentions on his userpage). You get a nice clickable link in your toolbox at the left.

So to sum up - useful thing, Foundation needs to communicate with us about it better than they have been, and clearer user instructions would be nice. Basically the same as the rest of Wikipedia then :) DuncanHill (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

... Well, are you going to write the (NPOV/non COI) article in mainspace? I suppose if there were the appropriate links then that would be the best place for it to sit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

SSP follow up request

You were recently involved in issuing blocks at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oxyman42 (2nd) and advised of being notified for follow ups. I have identified a number of unblocked IPs you might want to look at, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Oxyman42, based mainly on harassment of User:Abd. However, I just came across a difficult one (not interacting with Abd as far as I can see). It is a registered user, Railwayfan2005 (talk · contribs), registered on 17 November 2006. (Oxyman42 was created in April 2006 ). But the signs are:

• edited 60163 Tornado [1] (as did User:Firefly462 [2] on the class article)
• recently queried User:Tony May about the removal of images on List of rolling stock items in the UK National Collection, as did User:Firefly462 [3]
• has the same cat image on their user page as Oxyman24 [4]
• interested in railways and images, specifically London (Railwayfan recently added this commonscat [5], which contains images taken by Oxyman on Commons)

MickMacNee (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging by a conversation about a recent revert on my talk page, the above is probably just a conincidence. He certainly doesn't talk or act like Oxyman. MickMacNee (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I would think that there is a few people with very similar interests, and they are going to inhabit the same pages and ask the same questions - and railway spotters are notorious for "flocking"; it is very likely to be a false positive. As for ip addresses, I don't think blocking them after such a period is going to do anything, they have been abandoned and it is more likely for the sanction to catch an innocent editor than the returning block evader. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

He's still vandalizing

Check the latest edits from User talk:75.73.147.237 as he is vandalizing again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a further week. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess you should give him a longer block. He's doing it again. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Should I make a note in my appointments for 13 weeks from now? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

CosmicAnthropologist (talk · contribs) blocked!?

I wonder why you have indefinitely blocked this Wikipedian, CosmicAnthropologist, who created and contributed on, among many other useful and technical articles, Moufang polygons? That's the surest way to drive an intelligent guy away from contributing. If he is to be punished for sockpuppetry or vandalism, an indefinite block is too harsh. I've seen worse vandals in the past in Wikipedia getting only 3-month suspension! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.111.86.73 (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

They are a block evading sockpuppet, created to circumvent the sanction of the master account, and as such are blocked indefinitely upon detection. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Page protections

There are some pages in need of protecting on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, the page has been deserted for some time now. Elbutler (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall take a look. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

'It almost seems as though there is a link between punk rock and anarchist sentiments.'

I'm sorry, what is that supposed to mean? I am an anarchist myself, and I can assure you that Marvinst does not resemble anything to do with anarchism. Or are you one of those people who think anarchism is some nihilistic philosophy of just doing whatever you want, screw everyone else? Please read our article on anarchism.
I apologize if I seem abrasive; this just really gets to me. Two in one week! Zazaban (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2009

Did you click the link (I have re-imposed it within the header)? Nevertheless, I would comment that I am sufficiently familiar with Anarchism to know that many adherents reject imposed structures (conformism) and sometimes appear wilfully obtuse in their interactions with others in some situations - which I was referring to in regard to that particular editor. I would say that it pains me say it, being a bleeding heart liberal who acknowledges everyone's right to follow their own lifestyle choices, but I have never known an anarchist with a sense of humour... except perhaps the chaps I once saw at the Free Nelson Mandela concert in Hyde Park standing under a "Federation of Anarchist Movements" banner. Ah, well... Nevermind. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I usually do, but I had somebody claiming that the article on anarchism was factually inaccurate because it did not agree with him, even though everything was sourced and he refused to even read it. Aw well, I've actually made similar jokes in the past myself, I was just caught on a bad day- damn it, I've made an ass of myself, haven't I? :P Zazaban (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I shouldn't worry about it - anyone who commits enough time and content to this space will fall upon their ass eventually; but if you can acknowledge it and carry on with a rueful smile it will stand you in good stead. Look where that philosophy has got Lar!!

Anyhow, nice to have interacted - hope you are able to add your own interpretations of the wiki method into the melange. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You know...

Re this - I looked at my edit summary after making that edit, and I *knew* someone would call me out on it, considering the topic... Tony Fox (arf!) 22:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion needed

So, y'know that user whose profile makes them look like the fakest faker in Faketown? What do you think is the deal? Keepscases (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am uncertain to which individual or account you are referring to - the most active/recent one that crops up in your contrib history is one that I have not commented upon (that I recall). Can you give me a further hint? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm...I don't want to mention any names. I have not directly interacted with this person. Let's just say that this "relatively new" user has a surprising knowledge of Wikipedia combined with a rather curious collection of userboxes. Keepscases (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not enough for me to go on, I'm afraid. Should the situation change, or your concerns are heightened, or someone else queries the situation, come back to me and I will take a look. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wit

appreciated[6] KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
;~D LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

James Lascelles

He is not royal therefor no royal stub is needed 78.145.252.183 (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

TOTSE two

Howdy LHvU, I'mcoming to you because you initially protected the TOTSE article against IPs posting their new forums in the wake of the old one shutting down. Since the semi-pro lapsed, they've come back. I reverted a few of them and asked them to take it to the talk page, but I don't want to edit war over it. My initial thoughts were that since the information is all unsourced and several different places popped up, we should wait until for some kind of official source before letting the new forums essentially advertise on wikipedia. I thought I'd see what you thought, since the IPs are posting the info again and won't discuss it on the talk page. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any indication that you are aware of as to when there might be "official" news about a successor site? If there is, then I would be open to sprotecting up to such an announcement. In the absence of any statement I would rather sprotect for a few days, and then do so again if the ip activity resumes - and if after a while of sprotect, lapse, cleanup, resprotect then hit the indefinite length option. I shall resprotect to cover the weekend pending receipt of your thoughts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

None that I know of, but I'm not familiar with the original site and only know what I've read. Until there's an official notice of a new board (and that new board is shown to be independently notable), I don't think we should be posting random boards on the page. Is the spin-off of a notable board automatically notable?

Just being rhetorical here, I don't actually know one way or the other. I just know there were several boards that popped up as alternatives as soon as the main site went down, and I don't know if any of them have a notable connection to the original. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Is a spin-off notable? If it is created by the same people for the same purpose, then... perhaps. After sprotecting I went to the article talkpage to request feedback regarding further protection, so you may wish to join in (if there is anything to join) there. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, after the semi-pro expired an IP added the new site [7], which was then stricken (on-wiki) a few hours later [8] and redirected to another site. I deleted both of them and again asked the editors to explain on the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See how it goes; if there is no discussion but only revert warring then it can be indefinitely sprotected until folk start talking - it may be worthwhile putting in a invisible message in the contested area saying that non-discussed sites will be reverted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I placed a notice within the lead paragraph. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)I appreciate your attempt to try and get some discussion going on this page, but there's still several IPs adding one of three different successor sites. I've asked on numerous occasions for them to discuss it on the talk page and try and show notability for the new sites, but except for a couple of "It is because Jeff said it was" comments, nobody's talking. The IPs are assuming their new sites deserve mention. Any ideas on how to handle it? I've been trying to get a discussion goin, but I certainly don't want to edit war over whatever this site was. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of dialogue I suppose we have to consider how to protect the article in its previous incarnation. It is either long term sprotection, or whacking the ip editors with short blocks. If the ip addys are stable then the latter is the best option, since it allows ip editing from editors who are not pushing their site. If the ip's regularly change, but not the editing intent (or the only ip editing is to promote successor sites), then long term sprotect of the article is best - any new ip can request edits on the article talkpage. As you are more familiar than I with the ip editing makeup I will await your consideration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems 67.167.250.82 (talk · contribs) is the main offender, but not the only one. I'd suggest long-term semi-protection to try and force discussion back to the talk page. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have sprotected the article, noted my reasons on the article talkpage, and dropped a 31 hour edit war block on the above ip with reasons again. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

totse

there needs to be a list of "successor" sites on totse.com they are bbs.zoklet.net and totse2.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.36.179 (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Too nice?

I was tempted, but I like to give people another shot if they miss their foot the first time. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request, seeking your input.

See User talk:Codechief. He says all the right things, and he can easily be reblocked should he start spamming again. As he is a completely new user, and likely did not understand our polices, would you support an unblock, if I keep an eye on him? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

honeytrap /pot

I've never heard honeytrap are you looking for Honeypot (computing) ? =) –xeno (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a term I understood was used by the police or blackmailers in the use of a seduction person of the opposite (or not, depending on the blackmail/sting) sex to entrap an individual. I thought it came from bear hunting, and the use of real honey to lure out the animal...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, see the first few entries on Honeypot (disambig). Never heard it used as "honeytrap" though, not saying it's not, but I think honeypot is the more common usage. –xeno (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Might be a UK term, as this search indicates... Guess I can set up a redirect! Thanks for taking the time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

true, true. exists at Honey trap. –xeno (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I think the one word term needs to have the same redirect, as a barely notable band may be a bit disappointing to some "researchers". ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a hatnote? Your call. –xeno (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know - this is a band I have not heard of (FWIW) but people didn't seem to recognise my understanding of the term... I think a disambig page for two fairly obscure meanings would be best, but I am also a little perplexed as to how to create a hatnote or a disambig page straight to a redirect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This should work fine: {{this|the band|Honeypot}} , yes? –xeno (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I tested it, and since it clearly worked I added it - I will just nip over to Honeypot and clarify things there. Thanks, again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is already indicated as an alternative... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep I noticed that afterwards but I was keeping quiet to avoid potential embarrassment to myself ;p –xeno (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

68.192.223.254

FYI: This anon user does not appear to be blocked; s/he is continuing to commit vandalism, although it's on his/her own talk page. Specifically, the user has vandalized the block notification and later, it was removed. I recommend more stringent action. This anon user appears to be little more than a vandalism-only account. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked users can almost always edit their "own" userpages - if they want to make an unblock request, etc. If they vandalise/blank it, then they can be stopped but the best option is to ignore it. In a couple of days there might be a different person editing from that address, and there is no point in punishing them for someone elses stupidity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

75.108.73.219

Thought I would "loop" you in on this one...this anon user that you blocked a month ago is back at his ol' vandalism tricks again. Not sure if you want to handle this or let another admin take care of it, but I thought I would keep you informed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 29, 2009 @ 23:46

I dropped a note at the admin noticeboard this was being discussed upon. Let me know when they start up again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your note :) I will keep an eye on his/her contribs in the coming days and if anything starts up, I will let you know. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 31, 2009 @ 03:10

May I just say...

... that the "You should start an account at Uncyclopedia" message you recently left here was the greatest thing I've read all day. Majorclanger (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course you may! It wasn't even sarcastic, since the invention and humour of the now deleted article might have a home there - and it would keep them off the WP pages too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hey LessHeard, would you mind a quick restore of User:Grsz11/Review? Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 02:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please note it points to a redlink, but I suppose you can sort that out. I would also comment that I shall be retiring for the night soon, so you may need the services of another sysop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Apparantly I moved the content to User:Grsz11/Review archive, if you wouldn't mind getting that too. Grsz¹¹ 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I ec'ed and missed your comment. Thanks for the help. Grsz¹¹ 02:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I see someone else got it open - you might wish to remove the delete request (unless it has served it's purpose). LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

re User talk:Martin451#You wuz reported to AIV

I apologize for hitting the "report" button on the wrong talk page. It was a well meaning, but still stupid thing to do. I've tried to smooth things over with Martin451 since he obviously was completely blameless. I also apologize for any difficulties this caused for you or other admins. Rest assured that it is not a mistake I will repeat any time soon. Monkey Bounce (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mistakes is what good editors do from time to time - no problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User pretends to be a sock

Hi LHvU. I removed the sock template from User:BobbyCro that the user awarded to himself. There is no User:Andycrogonka. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Sock or not, themz iz blockzed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fadulj

Your block should still be active, but he's back with a new account methinks. Xasodfuih (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User 124.179.79.34 & Folau111

Hi - You recently blocked User:124.179.79.34 and I just wanted to let you know he:she is now editing as Folau111, an account used in the last few weeks for adding the same & similar nationality edits to rugby league articles. Not sure if you can help or if I need to report this elsewhere. Could you advise me, please? •Florrie•waltz a matilda• 05:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

From a quick look at a random sample, I am not sure this is the same editor - Folau11 appears to concentrate on a British superleague side and there is not the ethnicity issues as with the ip. If I have missed the edits that particularly concern you, it may be best if you can supply me with a diff. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure...

• 1 Folau111 editing the Sydney Roosters.
• 2 User:124.179.79.34 editing the Sydney Roosters.
• 3 Folau111 editing the Wests Tigers.
• 4 User:124.179.79.34 editing the Wests Tigers.
• 5 Folau111 editing Hull Kingston Rovers.
• 6 User:124.179.79.34 editing Hull Kingston Rovers.

In each instance the edits are exactly the same. Cheers, •Florrie•waltz a matilda• 14:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked for a month - this will force them to use their underlying ip to edit, and if that is the same as previously (and they continue to edit war to their preferred version) then I or another admin will be able to apply a longer sanction. Thanks for the diffs; they are the best evidence when requesting admin help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Cheers, •Florrie•waltz a matilda• 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

More pages need protection

Bambifan101's socks have set their eyes on List of The Mighty B! episodes, List of The Mighty B! characters, Talk:The Mighty B!, Hotel for Dogs, Hotel for Dogs (film), Talk:Hotel for Dogs, Talk:Hotel for Dogs (film), Balto (film)', Talk:Balto (film), and Robin Hood (1973 film). All of these pages need indef semi-protection. Elbutler (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I see Protonk has done the honours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It Continues

Sometimes during the day (I just woke up) anon user 75.108.73.219 continued his "can figure out what I am doing" style of editing to multiple television station pages. I wanted to let you know first, I will be reverted posthaste. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 1, 2009 @ 23:33

I reported the anon user to AIV (standard OP) and User:Kralizec! blocked him/her for 3 months. If you want to up that, you are more than welcome....I don't think anyone will dispute it with you. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • February 2, 2009 @ 00:20

3 months is fine, it is the next step up from a 1 month block - not sure why A.train only blocked for 48 hours in the meantime, but it isn't important - and if it continues after 13 weeks then we can look at a 6 month block. I am happy for a steady escalation of sanctions rather than sticking them on a years time out on the 3rd violation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're not too busy...

(moved to Freemasonry archive)

Godigital block evading

Hi LessHeard vanU. User:Godigital, whome you blocked for disruptive editing (reverting Romeo Miller and Master P to his preferred version) is doing it again as his IP (Special:Contributions/66.92.43.144). Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 22:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Stomped. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice one! :D John Sloan (view / chat) 01:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Toes

Sorry if I inadvertently stepped on your toes with the Kinomakoto (talk · contribs) block! Had I seen your AIV comment, I would have happily waited for a subject matter expert to weigh in regarding the edits in question. Sorry! --Kralizec! (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, if they continue after the block expires then they will get increasing sanctions whether or not the reviewer considers that it is all hoaxes or not - and if they don't continue (and even better, make useful contributions) then the short block has served its purpose. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Noticeboards and Palin

I stand behind every action I take, a message you seem to not have taken from my post at WP:AN/I. Which is fairly ironic given that it was the central point of the rant. Editors and admins are judged by the actions they take: their contribution history and their logs.

I stand by my actions with regard to the Sarah Palin article. How do I know it was the Right Thing to do? 'cause smart people told me so. Not (just) on IRC, but at the Arbitration case as well. And while consensus is important on a collaborative project like this, so is doing the right thing and sticking to the principles of the site.

Do I have a problem with transparency? Not at all. In fact I regularly argue for as much of it as possible (especially with regard to page histories and logs). The Arbitration Committee has both private mailing lists and a private wiki. Both of these things reduce transparency, but by your logic, we should be arguing against the use of both. Because of somebody misuses a medium of communication, obviously it's the medium's fault.

As a final note, it has the shortcut WP:DRAMA for a reason. So when you call others "drama mongers," remember that you do so with over 1300 edits to that page, more edits to it by you than any other page in the Wikipedia: namespace. Don't like drama? Don't involve yourself with it. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Intransigence is not generally considered a positive attribute, and it is even less appealing when it comes with a dose of arrogance - and while IRC does have voices speaking there whose opinions I respect and even sometimes share there are those there I emphatically do not, and yet have no recourse against because of a lack of accountability for what was said. I would also strongly argue that there is no more better informed opinion on the IRC channels than might be found on the Wiki space, and anyone who believes that IRC offers more profound consideration than may be found elsewhere has my disdain (and continued contempt when they feel that "per IRC discussion" is sufficient commentary when reversing on-Wiki consensus). Per the Sarah Palin instance, it was wrong and especially when one is convinced one is "Right" it needs to be measured against the consensus it is wrong and put aside; Admins are the instruments of consensus, not its judges.

I do argue for greater transparency of ArbCom, and consider that the private wiki to be a necessary evil that should be utilised as sparingly as possible and as much detail provided after the event as can be achieved without infringing upon its purpose - and again with the private mailing list I accept that the purpose outweighs the drawbacks - and have been consistent in that regard with my dealings with ArbCom.

Oh, yes, I am a regular at the AN boards and frequently comment at various ArbComs to which I am not a party - so much so that my article space contributions are a decreasing percentage of my contributions, but I would hope that a review of my interactions indicate that I am a responder rather than an instigator of various topics and while possibly some of my comments have not served to diminish the temperature that it would be in areas where opinion is already divided (of course, others may take a different view of my contributions there - but I can only speak of my intent). If I get involved in drama, previously or presently, it is not likely to be of my own instigation and I certainly won't be withdrawing from it now or in the future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

of Carnatic Music

Admins are the instruments of consensus, not its judges. Do you practice this really!!!???. In the case of Naadapriya related to Carnatic Music' you hastily acted as a judge to support your close acquaintance user 'Ncm' I am not him but share system with him. Do some soul searching whether you acted on your own or to help out a buddy. Your action has led to a disastrous effect on the article living control to one user. Your deliberate ad-hoc biased support to 'Ncm' has discouraged many senior editors from actively editing the article which is in a bad shape under the control by one language group. See if you can undo the damage. By a Vagabond from a Multi-User System76.212.3.119 (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I have not protected the article, even though it has been protected many times by different admins, and I have not blocked Srkris (talk · contribs) who has also been blocked by many differing admins for edit warring involving Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) (who, by remaining unblocked in this matter either edits to consensus or is extremely popular with a huge number of the admin community) or Sarvagnya (talk · contribs) although I did block Naadapriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours - the shortest block on that account, which is now indef blocked for edit warring - back in September. Is this the account you refer to or is it even further back, since it appears from my block comment that this was the result of an ANI discussion; which means I was prompted by consensus, as I averred above. Please let me know to which account you refer, since it appears that several have edit warred against the consensus that Ncmvocalist appears to edit to - although it does not necessarily mean that there is more than one editor utilising new accounts as the old ones are blocked. It seems that the matter weighs more heavily upon your mind than it does mine, since I have had to review the article thoroughly to September last year to find my most recent if not only intervention. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I note the following message was left on my userpage

  I do not believe in blocking and recalling blah blah just for the the sake doing so. However I have seen your hasty action on 'Naadapriya' related to 'Carnatic Music'. I am not him but share system with him. Do some soul searching whether you acted on your own or to help out a buddy. Your action has led to a disastrous effect on the article living a monopoly to one user. Your deliberate biased support to 'Ncm' has discouraged many like me to actively edit the article which is in a bad shape under the control by one language group. By a Vagabond from a Multi-User System.76.212.2.204 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  and it does appear that you refer to the September sanction. As mentioned, I acted in accordance to a conclusion to a discussion (although I do not recall the basis of the consensus) so it would be inaccurate to either claim it to be hasty or done on the behest of one person. It further seems that you are willing, or you condone it of someone with whom you "share a system" only, to violate policy in pursuance of your own POV rather than test it against the arguments of others to attempt to change consensus, so your accusations of my improper use of the tools - which I refute - ring rather hollow. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) (who, by remaining unblocked in this matter either edits to consensus or is extremely popular with a huge number of the admin community)

Almost all Sr. editors have quit in frustration. There is no consensus issue at all in the article

For sure he/she appears to be popular among some (mostly with same language background) and others buddy Admins like you.

As I understand Wikipedia is not against the use of shared system. Many of us use public libraries. However no one is using the shared system to solicit support for their views. Never gang-up on other editors like so-called community-ban gangs that has successfully executed 'hyenas attack on lone cub'

Your hasty (without reading the comments and ignoring the correct action by another Admin) action of unjustified block to support your close acquaintance Ncm POV has made a major negative impact on the article. Almost all 'bold' editors have either quit or forced to quit. Your block is cited often to force an editor out. Now the article is an orphan under the control of a specific language based group. After your wrong action only Ncm has managed to make unilaterally 99.999% edits to the article. It does not speak well about an important wikipedia article. Though it may not be practical to undo all wrong things happened since then, as a responsible Admin one should revisit and see if any correction can be made.76.212.3.119 (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I blocked according to consensus following a discussion at an admin noticeboard, so I reject the claim that it was hasty or ill considered - if you object to the consensus, then change it. The "bold" editors to which you refer are certainly bold in their belief that policies do not need following, and it is a stretch of AGF that only a group of disparate individual who happen to share the same public or educational computer system coincidentally follow the same viewpoints and methodology and no one else of that "language group" - which incidentally I find an extremely offensive comment, that there may be racist overtones in the pov being expressed. I shall not be responding further to this subject, since I do not care for my actions and those of differing editors and admins to be questioned by xenophobic sock/meatpuppets. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response

'I blocked according to consensus following a discussion at an admin noticeboard,'!!!??? you spontaneously responded to unfounded compliant by a single editor who had reverted the edits same or more than the editor whom you blocked. There was no consensus at ANI.

Except for one minor incidence that happened almost 2 years back which was immediately corrected, absolutely there were no violations of wikipedia guide lines from this system.

From the explicit information posted on the users page and type of edits one can conclude that majority of supporters of 'NCM' belonged to a particular language group. Nothing wrong about it if they support about a particular language based on their expertise. However ganging-up to attack an editor (e.g acts by Mspraveen) is a violation of wikipedia ethics.

I would also rest this argument for now noting it is big wound to be healed on wikipedia and try to bring it up again at appropriate environment. Hope responsible Admin take care of it.

By a vagabond from a multi-user system that has not violated Wikipedia guidelines.76.212.3.119 (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationalities again

Hi - edits claiming nationality have been appearing yet again over the last few days under another ip 121.218.10.131. Some diffs...

• [9] At Wests Tigers
• [10] At Hull Kingston Rovers
• [11] At South Sydney Rabbitohs

• Folau111's contributions
• 124.179.79.34's contributions
• 121.218.10.131's contributions

They are also editing individual player articles to insert their unreferenced claims, such as this [12]. Not sure what they are doing - rifling through player's family trees' for references to origins of great-grannies?

If they keep popping up with a new ip I expect there isn't too much you can do, but any assistance would be appreciated.  florrie  01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have enacted a fortnight block on the ip. I suppose the response needs to be WP:RBI as the list of target articles is too large to consider semi-protecting without consequences to good faith ip editors. Keep letting me know when a new ip pops up, although you might wish to find another sysop so we can share the "joy" a little (or should I not be available for a day or so). Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I shall spread the love, yes. Thanks again,  florrie  00:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

okay, I did....

Oh, it was on a user talk page about the discussion I posted, then undid to your talk page.[13] I'm not inviting you to the discussion, nor do I think you were a particularly excellent example, just the first one I came across, so I am informing you. --21:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, not my finest moment - but I guess you can lift an example of near anyone and cry "ZOMG, abusive admin". I think you may have chosen a more disinterested party than MZMcBride - see a few sections above - but since this is your party I am not interested in responding further. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to pick on you in particular, though. This note was just to let you know I had. And that I had picked you out of laziness on my part, not that you were the best example or even a particularly good example. Yeah, I did run through MZMcBride's edit history. --KP Botany (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100 per cent

With [14]. (well, 99.99% - I don't agree with the small slip!) DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The real question

What was he doing talking to a fashion journalist anyway? DuncanHill (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Stemming the tide

You really think it's worth it? Check out this page. Giano asked me to say hi and thanks. Bishonen | talk 00:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC).

I did at the time, else I would not have written it (and it was very heavily amended from the caustic and sarcastic rant that it was originally), and when I am calmer I will look again and see if it serves any further purpose. Presently, I am still furious that a professional can make such a "mistake" (and when The Sunday Times was still a newspaper of record and thus integrity, such misunderstandings would have resulted in dismissal) and Jimbo penalises the volunteer that responded in such a manner that he departs. As for BLP; I suppose it is right that the lazy, lame and stupid should be protected as well as the great and the good, but the article I have seen was properly referenced and provided the reason for notability in clearly NPOV language - far more so than the current state of British journalism could aspire to generally... Whatever, while I am angry I suppose I am not depressed.

When next in contact with Giano, say "Hi" back.LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Action (physics) - advice please

I am a relatively inexperienced minor contributor to Wikipedia. I recently rewrote the (hoplessy garbled) intro (leader) to the "Action (physics)" article. This was immediately "corrected" by user JRSpriggs. Since this "correction" resulted in a (in my opinion) broken article (see Talk:Action (physics)#Intro), I reverted the edit (with an appropriate explanation to JRSpriggs personal talk page – more courtesy than he gave me!). Predictably (in retrospect) he re-reverted, pulling "superior knowledge" rank on the talk page (his own talk page suggests a history of rather confontational editing). While I guess you are a busy man, I would be grateful if you could glance at Talk:Action (physics)#Intro, and advise me whether it is (a) desirable (from the point of view of Wikipedia), and (b) advisable (from the point of view of my own time and effort), to pursue this further (and if so, how?).(suggest you reply here)FredV (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am content to allow Fredvanner the opportunity to expand or otherwise more fully respond to your request, say another 48 hours. I will then ask if there is a reason for not providing either an answer to a direction to where an answer may be found. I have to say that physics is not an area that I am comfortable in claiming any understanding, but I can follow that there is a discrepancy in having concepts particular to quantum physics in the intro which are not part of the article body - a matter that requires addressing (clarity without simplification is a prime concern for any general encyclopedia). However, it would be best to allow all parties the opportunity to allow discourse to develop in the immediate future. Drop me a reminder in a couple of days should there have been no further reply. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

AC poll

Actually, I am flat out against it, but thanks for notifying me. :) — neuro^(talk) 23:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I gathered as much, but I have notified all of the opposer's prior to the introduction of the new section as a matter of courtesy (much like your kind comment here). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Removal of advanced permissions (proposed)#Neutral

(Answering this[15] comment left on my talk page): No, thank you, I think the entire policy is a badly-written disaster, and I focused in on the part of it that was most specifically detrimental to the Wikipedia project in making my !vote. But thank you for letting me know. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I gathered as much, but I have notified all of the opposer's prior to the introduction of the new section as a matter of courtesy (much like your kind comment here). LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sock

You're absolutely right. RBI and all that. But it's time for the B part (this particular excursion was made to make a backhanded insult against me; no problems really, as im probably the only one who would notice). Whatever this guys madness is, it must be an odd one. He created dozens of socks going back years for no particular purpose. He would make one, make 10 or so edits, then make another one, and carry on. So it's a big farm, but its bound to reach bottom eventually.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a current User:Lex Luthor to block, and the sockmaster is long since sanctioned. If you can point me a currently editing sock I will willingly smite them, but in that absence it is the I criteria that is to be followed. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

He's a sock of Manhattan Samurai, whose socks charecteristically edited one article for a brief time. Samurai has a deep interest in the Bakshi article, a deep interest in the Monahan article. and here's the latest socks contributions: [[16]]. Notice in the AN/I report this user doesn't mention what user account contacted him, his swipe at me in precisely the same language that all his socks use. Also note that this sock is actively editing, and the editor behind it has declared his intent to fill the encyclopedia with fictional information, if given a chance. It's a duck. But i'll bring it up with other admins if you're not interested. Best Bali ultimate (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no account named User:Lex Luthor, so I can't block it. If you can provide me with an account name, I will smack them with an admin bit (after a quick review, of course!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Lex Luthor is what MS calls himself. So, my contention is that DFW tragedy = Manhattan Samurai. It's only edits are on one of his articles and GA discussion he was interested in. This is also sort of a classic MS edit summary: [[17]]. It's possible im wrong -- maybe the overlap is that this user was canvassed off line by MS and acted on his behalf in good faith. I'll drop it now, but wanted to be crystal clear about what i was getting at.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fyi blocked/confirmed sock DFW tragedy

Healing Through Remembering

you were kind enough to offer feedback on my attempt at creating a page for the above mentioned organisation. For this I am grateful, and I hope I am approaching acceptability with the ongoing work on the page. Your advice and assistance on this would be much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anguslambkin (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

legend —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anguslambkin (talk • contribs) 14:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Foot or buttock? ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow.

You deleted that G1 page just before my FiOS connection even started loading the page. And I saw it after three seconds. M1N (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The joys of patrolling Special:RecentChanges... and having a block button. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The school IP thing

I know this is your dissision and what every but I know personally with schools that you will permentally get people editing from it so you may want to consider completely banning the, as if they want to edit the wiki for legitimate reasons (may have spelt that wrong sorry) they can create an account some where else so if they vandalise under a created account they are easier to track. Just a thought, but if you do reply please do at my talk page. Cheers matey, arrrr! 'The Ninjalemming'' 20:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Banning

Hi Less, thank you for taking action against the vandal I reported. But, honestly, what does it take to get a person banned? How many times must a person be blocked? (p.s. is the block just for editing, or reading too? Obviously, I don't think people should be banned from READING wiki, just editing it). You can reply on my talk page. Thanks :) Beansandveggies (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, Less, thanks for your help, and your explanation of things (I'm just a Burba ;) I gave you a Barnstar (my first :) Thanks again Beansandveggies (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I noticed; thank you, and I dropped a note for your future reference. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A-ha! Thanks for educmacating me :) ppreciate it Beansandveggies (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Samlaptop85213

Thanks, I appreciate it. Mr. Vernon (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Re Page

No problem glad to help :)

Happy editing

Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments} 19:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Different day, same old ...

You are very welcome. I was glad to be of service the other day... it looks like you've stirred something up, or maybe multiple somthings, eh? Good luck. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and another one

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user talk page! The vandal's back as 59.96.11.176, but you would have noticed that anyway, because it now loves you too :-) --Bonadea (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help with the person (Journalist1983) who undid my additions to the Nancy Jacobson article. Unfortunately, they or one of their sock puppets keeps returning to undo your changes (my additions). I'm new to Wikipedia editing and really not sure how to handle this. What will keep them from continually reverting the changes? --Nacl11 (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have warned the ip on their talkpage, and also undid their edit. Since removing referenced content is considered vandalism then you are permitted to revert them without penalty. If they continue to remove the paragraph revert them and issue a warning, and then report them to WP:AIV. The ip is a dedicated address, so they can be blocked for some length of time without risk of affecting innocent anonymous editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And still more thanks.

I support a permanent block of that account 100%. Doggone it, you try and assume good faith and the guy turns right around and sticks it to you. In the meantime, I salted the title and if a variation ever appears, I'll salt it as well. Thanks for the update. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I still drop by...

... from time to time --Crestville (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Blair Peach

The reason for your addition to the talk page is not the issue and I fully accept the first point you make in your addition. The problem is that your comment goes on to provide your own personal analysis of an alleged serious crime, when the article itself specifically says that was not proven to have occurred. So your statement could be seen to be libellous and should not be on Wikipedia. Your addition then goes own to present what it admits itself to be a rant on a related subject.

My edit did not "alter, amend or otherwise change the meaning" of your addition. What I did do was remove what Wikipedia policies and guidelines say should not have been there in the first place according to talk page guidelines. Talk pages are not the place for you to allege criminal acts, nor for you to provide your own analysis of these alleged acts, nor for you to soapbox your opinions of organisations mentioned in the article. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article.

If you feel I have changed the meaning of what you said then please explain what exactly you did mean by these comments in relation to improving the article and I'll be happy to replace it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The claim that a policeman struck the blow that resulted in Blairs death is noted in the reference in the article - and I would draw your attention to the article Special Patrol Group, where there is mention of police brutality. If necessary, I can provide references (reliable, from good sources) for both articles regarding allegations of racism, extracurricular attacks on political supporters, illegal weapon holding and suchlike. Therefore what I am repeating as said by others is not libel. I regretably have some experience of the behaviour of the SPG, and am not inclined to have their history whitewashed. I would point out, however, that on this and another occasion I have - despite my personal distaste for the subject - amended edits to a more neutral tone in accordance to WP policy. If you wish me to remove the comment about SPG members being thick racist thugs I shall do so, once you restore the comments I had made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Facts are the article does not say his death was caused by the SPG, it specifically cites that this allegation was rejected as unproven. If you have good cites that say otherwise please add them to the article. Unfortunately your opinions and experiences aren't notable, and the circumstantial details of other cases involving the SPG don't belong on this article. However, if you wish to amend your comment to be in line with talk page guidelines I'm happy to re-instate it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

"Verifiability, not Truth" is the WP requirement; and I can find plenty of references for the allegations that Peach was killed by a policeman - and the article can reflect the quantity and quality of the quotes, and the absence of any other reasonable explanation. While the Met and the SPG may have avoided a finding by not volunteering information (and there was no enquiry, so there was no requirement to make statements) does not mean that good sources cannot be used on Wikipedia to explain why this individual in notable (and Peach's notability is directly related to the allegations that he died following the use of inappropriate force by a police officer. Not to refer to that negates the question of Peach's notability.) When the allegation, substantive and persistant, is established then my referring to same is not libel, but fair comment. I do not hold much hope of your being able to see this however, so I shall edit the article - despite not wishing to previously - in accordance with WP requirement for cited sources to reflect the unrefuted allegations of police brutality. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fadulj

Hello LessHeard van. Back in December you blocked Fadulj based on this case. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind reviewing the new case in the header, and consider extending the block length. Once this is done, would you mind posting that you have done so to the case, so I or another clerk may close it. Thank you for your time. Synergy 00:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that by the time I could devote some time myself to this matter that it has been attended to. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Why!

Why is it vandilism I told people how to make a rope swing."wow thats real bad"(sarcasim)

                         --IceRules (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Laughed out of my chair!

You and I had a block conflict on 68.89.139.76 (talk · contribs · block log) (where, interestingly enough, we were both aiming for the exact same block duration). However your summary in the block log made me laugh so hard, I nearly fell out of my chair! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If your monitor screen has a momentary pink tinge, it is because I am blushing...! LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Recently the discussion with [User:Harry the Dirty Dog|Harry the Dirty Dog]] reported by Are you ready for IPv6? went from the Edit warring noticeboard to a parallel Incident noticeboard. Would it not be possible to keep everything on one page? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

Yes, best note on the ANI board that it is being discussed on the 3RR board already. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Our IP friend

Can we do something about 94.192.38.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? A short look at his recent contribution history will show what I'm talking about. THF (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't be endeared by this request. THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a vandal and thinks it appropriate to revert all my edits because he had a disagreement. He is being reported for disruptive activity. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

As you can see I have a static IP and have demonstrated I am not vandal by my edit history. You should look at THP's edit history and see what he does when he gets bored. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This edit summary does not give me any confidence you are acting in good faith, as is referring to THF as a vandal when they have a long history of contributing to the encyclopedia. I shall not block for the present, but if THF reports any further bad faith edits by you I shall do so; I suggest you consider your next few edits very carefully. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

For making threats, you are not acting in good faith. If I am blocked I will simply register an account and then you have a bigger problem. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)