Misplaced Pages

User talk:LessHeard vanU: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:25, 31 August 2008 editJASpencer (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers82,255 edits →Semi Protection: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:10, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,134,948 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{semi-retired}}
{{Warning|If you leave a message here this editor will possibly reply on your talkpage, or here, or on the talkpage of an article concerned, or somewhere else, or any combination of the above. It is probably best for you to suggest the preferred arena for a response... ] 00:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC) }}


<!--div style="margin: 0 1em; background-color: Cornsilk; background: -moz-radial-gradient(bottom right 90deg, farthest-side, Bisque, Cornsilk); border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: Bisque; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; padding: 1em; height: 1%;">
{{Notice|If you have come to this page to complain about my language in my edit summaries, most likely involving editing ''in'' the name of the area and/or nation in articles, then I would like to apologise '''here, ''now''''' for any offense caused..... LHvU }}
<div style="border-width: 2px 3px 3px 2px; border-style: solid; border-color: Tan; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; max-width: 40em; margin: .5em auto 2em; padding: 1em; background-color: Wheat; background: -moz-radial-gradient(bottom right 90deg, farthest-side, Tan, Wheat); color: SaddleBrown; font-family: Perpetua, Palatino, Bookman, 'New Century Schoolbook', 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 140%; text-align: center; position: relative;">
<div style="float: left; padding-right: 1em; position: relative; top: -2em; left: -2em; margin-bottom: -3em; margin-right: -2em;">
</div>
<p>


(message)
{{Important| '''Caveat'''
Should I receive information by private means I shall consider that the sender has waived any claim of copyright or privacy on their part of the message and has obtained such permission on the part of any third parties whose post(s) form part of the message. By communicating with me outside of Misplaced Pages spaces you are giving me permission to disseminate the content of any message in the manner of my choosing, and you hold yourself liable for any violation of law, Misplaced Pages policies, service providers Terms of Service, and other consequence of my making public of such information.


</p>
You may request privacy, and I may honour such a request, but I am not bound by it. Mark Slater(] 00:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC))}}
</div>




{{Archive box| ] ] ] ] ] <br> ] ] ] ] <br> ] ] ]}}






== Re. Heads up ==


<div style="margin: 0 1em; background-color: Cornsilk; background: -moz-radial-gradient(bottom right 90deg, farthest-side, Bisque, Cornsilk); border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: Bisque; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -moz-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); -webkit-box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 1em; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; padding: 8px; height: 1%;"-->
Thanks and yes they are being encouraged to come them to come to the articles talk page. I will do more along those lines either tonight or tommorrow.
{{Warning|If you leave a message here this editor will possibly reply... as I still have notification enabled. I, however, am '''''semi retired''''' and would be very grateful for anyone who is not requiring my <u>assistance</u> on a previous matter, or not making a social visit, to give all due accord to the notice at the top of the page and this notice and abstain from bothering me. Such irritations may garner a response that could be less than cordial... please be gentle. or responding to a request/comment generated by me, to gently pass on by without disturbing the equilibrium.
There are definite signs that this is merely a case of newbies not understanding wiki policy. Thanks again for your help. ] (]) 09:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
:Mark}}


{{Archive box| ] ] ] ] ] <br> ] ] ] ] <br> ] ] ] ] ]}}
== ] ==


This has been ]. I am inclined to grant the request but given the circumstances would like your opinion. (If replying, please drop by my talk page.) ] (]) 09:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
:Same for ]. ] (]) 13:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
:I just thought I would follow up on unprotecting the article. Cheers --] (]) 03:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
::You look pretty busy, so things are probably getting lost in the shuffle. I'm going to semi-protect the article(s) for now; feel free to stop by if you think that's unacceptable. I'll keep an eye on them for a while to make sure that peeps are behaving. --] (]) 17:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Actually, I'm just going to do it to naked short selling, since I'm more familiar with the article. I'll let you take care of Securities Fraud. --] (]) 17:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


{{Archive box| ] ]}}
== Thanks ==


{{clear}}
I appreciate your clearing the recent vandalism. Thanks again.--] (]) 20:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
:Cool. ] (]) 21:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


== ] == == Precious anniversary ==
{{User QAIbox
| title = Precious
| image = Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
| image_upright = 0.55
| bold = ]
}} --] (]) 09:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
:Thank you. ] (]) 19:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
::Nice to see you Mark. I hope you're well. --] (]) 23:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
:::I am, thank you, Steve (? I hope, it has been rather a long time!) ] (]) 17:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
::::It is I, <s>]</s> Steve! Well remembered, as it's been not rather a long time but a ''very'' long time! :) --] (]) 19:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::Do miss having LHVU areound that's for sure but understand the step away from the madness. ] (]) 19:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::Of course, your name is noted on your Userpage - but I only checked that just a moment ago; I was never one that thought it necessary to check the sources before committing to publish... as you might remember! ] (]) 16:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
::::::Lol! Sense of humour and attitude intact; account-not-hijacked confirmed :) Anyway, good to see you mate, I'll leave you in peace now. --] (]) 20:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::: I was wrong, it's today ;) --] (]) 07:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
::::::: Do you need the earlier one back? ] (]) 19:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
:::::::: I'll tell you when I run out of kindness ;) - I have someone on the Main page ], DYK, but also ], see? --] (]) 20:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)


== Oh my! ==
If he starts in on his "The CW" antics again, we'll be right back on the ] page again. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 12:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:I advised him that if he stays away from that, I'll stay away from him. "Good faith" has nothing to do with it. I don't know him from Adam. All I know is that ''he's wrong'' about this "The CW" nonsense. As long as he leaves that alone, I should be able to leave him alone. The rest of his edits are about technical details about the radio and TV stations that I assume or hope he knows what he's talking about. It's when he gets into this "grammar" stuff that he gets himself in trouble. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 12:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::And speaking of "good faith", his first act if and when he comes back should be to wipe the personal attacks off his talk page. Or ''you'' could do that, as it's a rules violation, yes? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 12:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:::Personal attacks are against the rules. Why does he get to decide when or if to remove them? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 13:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::::I don't care what he calls me. But he named 6 others, and they might. And as ] pointed out to me a couple of weeks ago, even if I don't care about a personal attack, it's against the rules and should not be tolerated. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 13:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


I had no idea you were still - or again - kicking around here. Good to see you! (Of course I see you in that other place too but seeing LessHeard vanU is a treat!) I wonder how the old gang are doing. Stay well! <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 02:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
He's back, and promising to resume the edit war. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 16:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:Heya! I read the 'pedia for fun these days, and hit random article when I have a few minutes to spare. If I see something I can improve - like an USA article that neglects to mention that it is such - then I do a little edit. I log in to take responsibility for it. I have a few pages I still keep a watch on, as well. ] (]) 21:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
:And having been sufficiently rebuked for daring to continue to speak out against this guy's behavior, I've had enough of this topic. I have marked the issue resolved, removed my comments from his talk page, and am no longer watching either his page or his edits. He wins. If our paths never cross again, it will be too soon. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 18:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::(You have archived your page, so I shall respond here) Him or me? Ah, well... ] (]) 19:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC) ::Reading this (nearly) makes me want to creak back into action ... ] ] (]) 20:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
:::No, I mean him, not you. :) Currently there may be only one or two articles he and I have in common, but not for this issue. And for safety's sake, I won't say which ones. :) ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::::Cool. If you have further probs it looks like OhnoitsJamie has stepped up to the plate. I will be happy to review as well, but I generally issue indef blocks on the basis that I will overturn if the offender says they will try to sort things out (I don't tell them this, of course, when I do) but I also unblock on the basis that I will re-instate it if they don't live up to their promises (and I don't tell them that, either). Since I am not involved in the content dispute I can afford to look at the "what's best for WP" question, but I am aware it can be frustrating for those that are involved. ] (]) 20:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::I will maintain a very low profile on this one, as the other admin has promised to watch it. I have other things to do. :) ] <sup>'']''</sup> 20:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::It may be starting again - he just someone on ], but he slipped in a "CW" only change, which was NOT part of the he reverted. I've corrected his "mistake", but this bears watching. ] (]) 16:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I see Kingturtle has protected the page. Kudos. One mole whacked. Now let's see a show of hands from anyone who's surprised that Rollosmokes continued his ''The CW'' "grammar" crusade... Anybody? ... I didn't think so. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 17:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::He's still with the "CW" changes... - ... ] (]) 18:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::The article is now protected. I suggest that some form of discussion regarding what the consensus is for the proper infobox titling is started on the talkpage. In the meantime, I am trying to see if someone might be amenable to asking Rollosmokes to leave the matter alone. ] (]) 20:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::The other two articles are not protected. Good luck getting somewhat to write something to him that he will listen to. It won't be me. :) ] <sup>'']''</sup> 23:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


== Precious anniversary ==
Today he got his second indefinite block in the space of a week. Is that a record? ] <sup>'']''</sup> 13:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Eight}} --] (]) 06:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
:Meanwhile, I, his Number 1 "vulture", did nothing to him this time. Must have been one of the other "vultures". Of which there appear to be a growing list. But all is not lost. It's an inspiration. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 13:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:Lustre yet undimmed. ] (]) 13:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
::What I'm surprised at is that it happened so fast. You'd think he would lay low for awhile. Meanwhile, I don't know if he's tried to get on today, but if so, ''he'' shouldn't be surprised, especially given his complaints that everyone's watching him. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:: lovely phrased - ], I have more for you, cake even, - to uplift while we have to miss Flyer22, Yoninah and SlimVirgin, and ] for different reasons, and too many others, - check out Die Fliege - the fly on my talk. --] (]) 10:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
:::Kudos to the blocking admin OhnoitsJamie. He promised to block if the disruption continued. The user promised to continue the disruption. Both of them kept their promises. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
::::The blocking admin also wiped the talk page, including the "final shot" at all of us "vultures". ''Finis.'' ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I think it was FirsRon and KingTurtle, and maybe some others. They are to be commended for giving this guy every chance. He let them down. It happens sometimes. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 22:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


== Ha ... ==
] looks to be back, this time as ]. I've moved the issue back to ]. --] (]) 22:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
:BB, is you ''naked''? ] (]) 22:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


So you ''are'' popping your head in once in a while. Glad to see that. Always good to see a member of the ''Editor's Hall of Fame'' around. :-) Hope you and yours are well Mark. ] (]) 19:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
== sockpuppets ==
::...and you, too! ] (]) 14:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


== Damn... ==
AlasdairGreen27 and his compliants are sockpuppets! PIO is a regular editor because his Italian persecutor ] is retired! I am not from Milan, I am not PIO and I add links under wiki rules: if you don't like my IPs then can you add links interlanguages in related articles! Open your eyes! 17 July 2008 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Sometimes dipping in results in a little scalding... ] (]) 10:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
==review of your block at ani==
By my count, five uninvolved editors have reservations, and two support. I'm rather surprised it's still an indef. Any thoughts? ] (])
:LessHeardvanU, this ip is ranting back on ] in Abtract's defense to the point where even I am beginning to suspect that it is Abtract himself. I didn't think of it at first, until Collectonian brought it up on WP:AN/I. Care to look into this? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
::I just found out that this is a hopping ip, see also ] and ]. The behaviour is similar indeed. And it is odd that the anon defends Abtract with vigor. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 03:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


{{User QAIbox
::: "? :)
| image = Daisy, Ehrenbach.jpg
| image_upright = 0.8
}}
... for what you said on ] - , with music full of hope and reformation --] (]) 20:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
:::More in response to the Precious Anniversary posts, but under this heading because reasons. While the deaths are sad and deleterious to the project, it is inevitable. However, the stupidity resulting in the cessation of RexxS contributions provokes a response more in the nature of exasperation. ] (]) 16:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message ==
:::It's only odd that I "defend" Abtract (I wouldn't describe it as that, exactly, i am in fact critical of all three parties) from your POV. A number of editors have looked at the history of interaction between the three of you and have come to roughly similar views to my own.


<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
:::I am allocated an IP and i edit under it. I've never deliberately abandoned an IP nor edited from more than one account at a time nor sought in any way to hide the history of my editing. Therefore I find your references to hopping offensive, please refrain. Thanks. ] (]) 04:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
== CSCWEM ==


If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
Since you filed the RfAr, I thought you might be interesting in chiming in here: ]. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 12:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:Looks I was typing to you as you were typing to it. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 12:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
::Indeed - I edit conflicted twice while posting there. Cheers. ] (]) 12:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

== ]... ==

...is asking for you to review the block. I've made my opinions known there. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 16:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
:I've responded there to the unblock request. I think I have steered a middle course; I doubt if anyone is going to like it much. ] (]) 19:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
===and again===
your presence is requested, at the usual venue. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Done. Hopefully the ''peeved'' factor was not apparent until, possibly, right at the end. ] (]) 21:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
::I wanted to apologize to you personally, as Bart's mentor, for having blocked him the first time as, you are correct, I should have brought the continued incivility to you first rather than submitting the block myself; it was an error in judgment and I will be sure not to make the same mistake again, particularly since his talk page will now be thoroughly watched by non-involved admins. I would guess, from the reason that Ryan protected the talk page, that he's a little more than peeved himself. Cheers, ] 22:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Did we ever decide whether or not he was allowed to reorganize talk pages? Because he's . I have not brought this up with Bart yet because I am unclear if it is a violation or not and don't wish to continually disturb everyone by constantly posting minor things on his talk page. Cheers, ] 15:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
:From the comments by ] - an advantage of being British is that I don't need to check the spelling of that username... - recently on Barts talkpage it seems that he can. I think perhaps taking a chill pill and only reacting when he seriously steps out of line (if he does, per AGF) would be the best for both of us. ] (]) 16:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
::Sounds good. Cheers, ] 16:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

it is minor, but it is more then just moving stuff around. why would someone edit a , i don't get it. ] (]) 10:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

:Well, I can explain this as well: "Captain Celery" at first forgot to sign and only did so a minute later on, hence. ] (]) 11:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
::But is it important? No. Is it aggravating? Sometimes, for some people. Why do you insist on doing it? Dunno, it isn't as if you need the talkpage edit credits... ] (]) 20:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Your guess is as good as mine actually. ] (]) 20:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

===Yet Again===
This time far more serious than refactoring talk pages - he has now taken up posting comments from the indefinitely blocked ], despite a warning and agreement not to. Until he (Young) is unblocked, I believe that ] applies to that. Cheers, ] 20:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
:As I already pointed out on my own talk page, first of all Robert Young isn't mentioned at all, and secondly, it's proof referring to Laurent Toussaint investigating ]. ] (]) 20:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
:It was my understanding that, until he is unblocked, that his indef. block amounts to a ban. The Canada Jack reference that Bart is making can be referenced ], where my assertion seems to be supported. I do, however, agree that more review from different people would be prudent. Cheers, ] 20:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
::I was referring to a dispute between Canadians. ] (]) 20:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
:::That seems awfully complicated for a borderline infraction. I'm sure that Bart understands now that it's not to be done. If it continues to happen, I will go for what you say. Until then, we'll let something slide for him (for the 100th time). Cheers, ] 20:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
::::It won't happen again. ] (]) 20:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I do think it is a very important option and probably a question that needs answering. A good faith assumption and Bart's message that it won't happen again is enough for me. What I might do, however, is get a discussion going on the policy page for some community input (without mentioning any names of course), as it would be nice to have some definitive consensus, even if it's from a non-admin point of view. I have a few real life tasks to attend to at the moment, but I'll let both you and Bart know when I start the discussion if you'd like some input. To clarify, by the way, I mean input on the question of whether or not the policy I pointed out applies to indef. blocked users as well. Could be an important distinction! Cheers, ] 20:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Looking forward to it. ] (]) 11:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

== Re: Re Abtract ==

I don't understand why the block duration was changed. I read the comments on ] but I don't see anything in regards to a "last chance" or the sort. How come? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
:Settled. Though I can only wholeheartedly agree if Abtract receives a very, very last warning. Should there be an instance of him editing a page that he has never involved himself with, well, immediate blocking will do. I honestly can not stand this user's cyber-stalking and I'm sure Col thinks the same. So, can you convey that warning? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 20:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You might need to nudge both S and C. If they both want to have any chance of having full community support, they need to look at the second paragraph of A's proposal on his talk page, and consider quickly coming to some sort of explicit agreement there. After that, if he requests to be unblocked on the basis he will comply with the agreement, then it probably should be granted. It's the quickest and most effective way of resolving this dispute for once and for all, as whomever (of the 3 editors) violates the agreement will be sanctioned or blocked. In the absence of an explicit agreement there (because, S, C or A are unwilling to comply), the alternative is not just time-consuming, but will probably leave this dispute unresolved for more time than is necessary. Anyway, that concludes my view as a complete third party. I also think you've handled this situation reasonably well so far, especially in your communications with both parties. :) Regards - ] (]) 09:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:Heh, that's okay. And you're very welcome. ;) ] (]) 10:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

::If a repeat incident happens, I think you'll understand why Collectonian would need to be blocked for edit-warring now. Anyway, Abtract has been unblocked so the matter is at that for now. ] (]) 05:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:::C has basically refused to close that discussion without forcing a restraining order on Abtract (despite explaining why this is not possible), and has reverted me twice already in closing the ANI discussion. I think it'd be better if a sysop closed it if reverted again. ] (]) 15:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

==your concerns==
the user in question was blocked over ], not because they were in a "content dispute". See the reply on my talkpage. ] <small>]</small> 16:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

==Unblock of boy2boy==

Hey there. I don't know if you care or not, but I wanted to let you know that while I maintain my reasons for the block, I have no problems with your unblocking, especially in the manner you did so. Just FYI. ] {{IPA|&#448;}} ] 21:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:Well if anybody was going to unblock, I'm glad it was someone I trust. And your response (20:55, 20 July) to my comment made me a bit less concerned. That simple Google search I did showed "Boy2Boy" is more specific a phrase than just "Boy" and it bothers me where, say, "User:Boy4GayPride" wouldn't. "Boy2Boy" seems to be about "cruising", "hooking up", call it what you will. That's still pretty offensive, it seems to me. Is there a more innocuous definition that's used more often? I'm going to think about challenging it at ]. If I do, I'll leave a note here for you. Whether procedure was followed correctly or not in the block isn't the kind of thing I know anything about, although I've been supportive of the idea of giving people warnings in the past.

:I just sent you an email. These (really horrible pics) illustrate it (sorry, indulge me):

:]

:]

:Since you've unblocked, I hope you'll monitor B2B's future edits, including the sourcing.

:Regards, ] (]) 02:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

::It remains to be seen whether Boy2boy resumes editing. Sometimes a posthumous reduction of sentence to 20 years less time "served" while dead is a hollow judgement... but WP is not life and death. ] (]) 11:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

==Mess at ] - how fixed?==
Could you spare the time to give me a very brief idea of how you fixed the vandalism at ] a short time ago, and how it had been perpetrated? It appeared to be transcluded and template based, and I'd got the idea it might have been done via the hatnote, but you'd sorted it and restored the hatnote before I was able to track down the offending edit, and I just can't work out what you did. I do a fair bit of anti-vandal work and I'm trying to improve my understanding of the more subtle stuff. A response here is fine. Thanks for any help. <strong>]]</strong> 13:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks for the reply and for the link to the instructions, which helped a lot. I've checked through the edit histories of the templates transcluded to ] and found a couple which were vandalised by this particular user in the past day or so, using two IP addresses (both already blocked). Seems like if you bring up an edit history as your instructions say, find the list of transcluded templates and then visit the ones not marked "protected" or "semiprotected" in turn, checking their history for recent IP edits, you can find the source of the trouble fairly fast. If no joy, try the semiprotected templates and look for suspicious user edits. Revert, arrange page protection, and purge.

:For what it's worth, I think you're right that the trouble had been fixed and your actions purged the page cache. The guilty template seems to have been ] or ]. I feel a lot more clued up now. Thanks again for your time. <strong>]]</strong> 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Carol Spears Ban ==

Do I have to make a formal proposal or something? Is AN/I the place for proposing and discussing community bans? --] (]) 14:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
:Heck, I just flung it up on AN/I. It's time for everyone to stop wasting time with this woman and get back to writing an encyclopedia and cleaning up her mess. --] (]) 17:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

== Quickies ==

Yes, I did. Misplaced Pages user talk pages are not on-line private chat forums for people to kid around and post personal attacks. Everyone is so gung ho on chatting with her, let them find a place to do it, not Misplaced Pages. Indeed it's time to be done with her, and no one else is bothering to get it over with. She had nothing to say in her articles, that's why she made stuff up. She has nothing to say worth affording her space for on her user talk page, either. --] (]) 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
:For future reference, I am overly fond of absurdist literature. --] (]) 20:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

A ] which you commented on has been opened, and is located ''']'''. Any evidence you wish to provide should be emailed directly to any sitting Arbitrator for circulation among the rest of the committee. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] 14:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

== Furry Dance ==

Hello, can you please expand on your edit comment about the Hal an Tow. What are you thinking? Thanks. ] (]) 13:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

== RFA Thanks ==

{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|green}}}; background-color: {{{color|#98FB98}}};"
|rowspan="2" |{{clear}}
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Thank you for participating in my RfA, LessHeard vanU!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif;"| I am grateful for your confidence: ] passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! Of course, I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, so I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, I will be ] under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please ]. Again, Thanks! ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
|}

Quite a monster. Quite. :) ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

== My value system ==

]

I gave it a couple of hours and then went back to reread your comments towards me. They were inappropriate, lacking faith, and insulting. No, they aren't against ] in my opinion, but they are completely ].

{{trout}}

] 00:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

:Your inability to understand that other peoples perception of what constitutes an insult, where their cultural and ethnic background is dissimilar to that of yours, is entirely your own affair - and if you are so insensitive to others pointing out that an opinion based entirely on your individual perceptions based on limited personal experience is unworthy of being disseminated on a forum that is frequented by English speaking peoples of a wide variety of cultures and nations, then you may be best advised not to frequent the place at all.
:There will be no apology, since I am prepared to stand behind my comments. An insult is that which ferments discontent and alarm upon the recipient, and is not the arbitrary consideration of a third party who may not be familiar with the term, its history and the perception of it to other people. Your "morality" where '']'' and '']'', etc, are considered abusive, but not that of ''"red headed"'' (which I didn't know was a term of abuse, until today, for Indonesian people), is inappropriate within a website that has an international editorship, and placing a value system which determines that your impression of insult is somehow more relevant to that of the insulted individual is more than just contrary to the precepts in the countering of racism - it embraces it (although I am certain that it is through ignorance than bad faith.)
:Lastly, do not again question my antipathy toward racism or any type of phobia based on culture, faith (or lack of), lifestyle, gender, sexuality, or whatever. It is not something that I am generally prepared to be civil about which, under the circumstances, I am endeavouring to be in this matter. ] (]) 00:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, you missed the point, didn't understand what I had said in that thread or said here. And your "lastly" is so out of place, it's actually strange. Maybe you want to go read that thread again. Than read my comment here. Than maybe strike out half of what you just said. Just a suggestion. ] 04:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

== You have mail ==

And, lucky you, it's from me! ] (]) 07:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
:What, is Lar hiding or something..? ] (]) 08:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

== RfA Thanks ==
<div class="NavFrame" style="border-style: none; padding: 0px; ">
<div class="NavFrame" style="border-style: solid ; text-align: left; border: blue solid 1px; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background: blue; padding: 5x;">
<div class="NavHead" style="border-style: solid; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background: blue ; text-align: center; border: blue solid 1px; padding: 10px; font-size: 150%;"><font face="helvetica" color="black">A message from ].</font></div>
<div class="NavContent" style="background: none; display: none;">
<center>
<table style="background: white ; text-align: left; font-size: 95%;"><tr><td>
<tr><td><table style="width: 100%; float: left; margin: 5px; border: black solid 3px; -moz-border-radius: 5px; background: white;">
<tr><td><div style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; font-size: 150%;">]Thank you for participating in ], wich was successful with ''73 support''', '''6 oppose'', and ''5 neutral''. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page!

Cheers, --] <small>(])</small> 14:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
</td></tr> </td></tr>
</div></tr></td></table> </table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1056563129 -->
</td>
</td></tr></table>
</center>
</div></div></div>


== comment on block == == Precious anniversary ==
{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Nine}} --] (]) 07:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


::Thank you! ] (]) 16:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, you blocked a user FResearcher recently, and I on the block. Would appreciate your reply. Thanks. ] (]) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
:Will respond there. ] (]) 12:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


==]== == ] source? ==
Oh, how I loathed the idea of doing it, but I've gone and done it (182 refs 'n-all.) The problem is that I'm getting the feeling that user ] is trying to start a fight. I put this down to the fact that I was instrumental in getting ] booted off GA status a while ago (his contributions show that the article is #1 on his list.) I mentioned this, but he fobbed it off by saying he contributes to lots of articles. I think he's trying to goad me, but I'm not biting. Can you have a look and tell me if I'm talking a load of shite or not? I'll have to wait a bit for "that bloody woman" to get a review, so I'm relishing it very much. Ta, very much,


Hallo Mark, I am delighted to see that you are still occasionally editing, as my enquiry relates to an article you created in 2006!
:It's calmed down a bit, funnily enough. Although you never know... :)--] (]) 13:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


You created ], which in 2009 was turned into a redirect to Breage. Today there was some discussion about ] which included mention of "when the place in Wales became a redirect", and I followed up out of curiosity and created a page for Carleen again over that redirect.
== Beatleing about ==


Your original stub gave the name derivation, but with no ref. Have you got a source for that? (I imagine a book of Cornish place-name origins beside your desk, optimistically). Please add it to the article, sourced, if you can. Thanks. ]] 22:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, thought you might be interested in this new article by a new editor ], It was speedied once (under different capitalization), I have done a quick wikify on it, but it would benefit from someone with a bit more knowledge of the Liverpool music scene of the era than me having a look at it. Best wishes, ] (]) 15:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


::Doubtless I have had many Cornish name source books over the years, any of which may have contained an entry for Carleen... but none now close to hand. Most publications are local, and are unlikely to qualify as reliable sources. WP:OR will provide you with the name; "Car" meaning 'fort' or more likely 'defendable dwelling/place' and "Leen" (or "lene" or "lean") meaning 'Stone(y)', which is likely how the various authors have come to the translation. If ever I find anything which seems like a peer reviewed book or website I will endeavour to include it. ] (]) 16:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
== Just wondering.... ==


== Yuletide Felicitations ==
you're pretty familiar at this point with my complaints about ]. For somebody who wants to be "left alone" he's going out of his way to get in the middle of things. He has had in the past a bad habit of stashing pages and information in his user and talk page revisions (which was part of my initial complaint).


If you are reading this, then you are exactly one of those people to whom I would like to wish all the best for the Season and those to come. ] (]) 14:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to be brief, but I need to outline a bit to indicate why I think there's a problem: I was doing a cleanup of some of the Cat Freemasonry pages for accuracy, etc., and as I was doublechecking the Anti-Masonry cat, I found ]. I looked at his article, and he claims to be a Mason and is on the List page, but the only source is what Salza says on his own webpage. I made a note of this on the List talk (because his claims are odd and records exist even if he quit), and Blueboar decided to prod it as nn. This all well and good, but then I find followed by , where Dwain has cut and pasted the Salza article into his talk and then undid the revision to hide it.
:And to you. Great to see that you're around(ish). Best, ] &#124; ] 18:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


==Thanks!==
This is exactly the behavior I noted in my recent complaint and in the past. My concern is this: what possible reason could he have to do this if he has no agenda and "wants to be left alone," as he claims? This strikes me as either going out of his way for no apparent reason, or keeping an eye on things that he claims he isn't. He's toeing the line here and I'm pretty sure he knows it. Is there a policy governing what I see as misuse of talk? ] (]) 17:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
<div style="width:800px; margin:0 auto; text-align:center;">
:<!-- For reference; ] -->Replied on your talkpage. ] (]) 19:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
::I'm keeping an eye on it, and having looked further into it, he started the article, but again, despite wanting to be "left alone", he's creating and maintaining articles on Catholic anti-Masons? As per the AfD, I'd also note that I'm getting a little tired of JASpencer's inflammatory statements. His anti-POV is blatant, though he tries to pretend he's neutral and that the rest of us are whitewashing. ] (]) 06:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
]


Bishzilla thanks the little Less for his thanks and awards him a much belated but affectionate Happy New Era card. ] ] ] 15:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC).
== Siouxsie and the banshees editorial problem==
</div>
Hello, I invite you to sort out a recently problem encountered on the ]. Here it is. On wikipedia, I remark that there's the following consensus : on a page about a band, one doesn't publish a picture when only the singer appears on it with no other band member on his/her sides. I read many bands pages and that's always the case on wikipedia. Here are the instances I took, the band pages about ], ], ], ], etc. So, I guess, it's better that pictures that only show the singer of a band, are not selected on a band page. Yet, recently, people who contributed nothing on the 'siouxsie and the banshes' page, like a user called JD554, threatened me on my user page from edit blocking, plus he posted a weird comment on the history SATB page as if he had one thing against my old contributions. I know that this person was in the past the only one user on ] page who took defence of user wesleydodds on may 17 th 2008 for a editorial content. So, I wouldn't state that wesley dodds and JD554 are friends or the same user but it seems strange that JD554 arrives on SATB page where as he wrote nothing on that page???. Two other users who also contributed nothing on "Siouxsie and the banshees" page wrote that they wanted this pic. I explained my point about why I thought this pic was not goog for the SATB page : you'll find my answers at the history SATB page. Thanks to let me know how to resolve this. ] (]) 05:09, 1 august 2008 (UTC)
:I will look over this this evening (my time). ] (]) 15:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


== Always precious ==
==Hello==
]
I might have a potential move-vandalism and general vandalism problem. ], ], and ]. The latter of the three left Misplaced Pages in December of 07 and came back yesterday. The others appear to be new accounts.
Ten years ago, ] were found precious. That's what you are, always. --] (]) 07:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
:Ah... ten years? I misremember it well! ] (]) 10:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
BeerBelly82 the Johnstown/Altoona Television Market template to ], though I can find nothing to show "State College" is part of the official Nielsen "name" for that market. All of the pages that linked to the old template were then changed. TitleRanch903 appears to be following in this changing of old templates.


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
BuffaloSam has moved market templates to "names" that don't appear to match the official Arbitron "name". This user also changed all of the pages that linked to the old template.
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
To me, this seems like move-vandalism and general vandalism. I could be wrong, but as ] and ] are out, I bring it to your attention. Thanks...] <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>]:]</sup></span> 23:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
:Hello, this has been sorted out by another admin. Take Care...] <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>]:]</sup></span> 05:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
::Cool. I don't know what time it was for you when you posted, but it was gone midnight here in Blighty when you posted... Thanks for the reference, anyhow. ] (]) 08:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
:::It was 7:35pm when I posted :) All turned out well. Take Care and Have a Great Sunday...] <span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>]:]</sup></span> 15:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
==RfA thanks==
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 5px solid #0050b2; background-color: #2486ff;"
|align="left"|]
|align="center"|Thank you for participating in ], which did not succeed with '''30 in support''', '''28 in opposition''' and '''6 neutral votes'''. Thanks again for the support! <!-- this thank-you created with Template:RfA-thanks -->
|}


</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1187131902 -->


== Happy Holidays! ==
—<font face="Trebuchet MS" size="2px">''']'''</font><sup><font face="Trebuchet MS" size="1">]</font></sup> 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


If you read this, then you are most likely in need of Seasonal Cheers - so, just for you, "Yay Winter! Go! Go! Go!" 12:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC) ] (]) 12:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
== Re:ANI ==
:Well hello and happy new year to you too! Always good to run into old friends in old places. I'm not here much anymore either. See you on FB. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 23:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


==Disambiguation link notification for February 24 ==
Well, your effort is coming back like this. from {{User|Carl Daniels}}. More information would be here.--] (]) 15:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
:Sorry to bother you again, however, I receive the same complaint from another user, {{User|Btzkillerv}} like this.. I'm so curious as to how the bashing comment from indef.blocked user would meet a freedom of speech. Well, the user certainly received Lucy's comment because of ]. Given the comments like racist attacks by the user,, I would not wonder why Btzkiller highly thinks of "freedom of speech". Can you take a look at these? Thanks.--] (]) 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
::I have commented regarding the removal of personal attacks from peoples talkpages (whether they like it or not) at Btzkillers talkpage. I agree that the last two examples you gave are inappropriate (the rest seem to be from different accounts - but no less appropriate) but I am not looking to be handing out blocks tonight. It is late evening in the UK and I am retiring for the night, so please try to stay out of fights and if you ''do'' need admin assistance while I'm offline it will have to be someone else. Cheers. ] (]) 22:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Thank you very much. I hope they understand your instruction. --] (]) 22:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ].
== Unblock request for your review ==


(].) --] (]) 18:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
] is requesting an unblock - it seems he's willing to communicate with other editors now. Since you blocked him, I defer to your judgement. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 21:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


==Disambiguation link notification for June 1 ==
:As I just commented on the editor's talkpage, I think it would be unwise to unblock until there's actually a '''''discussion''''', i.e. a response to another editor's comment. So far, there's been no response to my 4-hour old comment, although it could, obviously, just be the wrong time wherever Arataman 79 is. ] <b><small><sup>(] / ])</sup></small></b> 22:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ].
==Circumcision==
Do I care about what you think? No. ] (]) 22:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


(].) --] (]) 17:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
== We're friends ==
Seeing that we're friends I'm just stopping by to say, "hello." Unless of course you were trying to be insulting when you refered to me as a "mutual friend." As an administrator it doesn't become you to take sides against an editor behind his back. ] (]) 19:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
:I don't think that I have interacted with, or about, you for some weeks... although I have just used that exact phrase regarding another editor. Tell me, are those socks you are wearing with the Jesus sandals? ] (]) 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
::Hmm, August 1st is "some weeks" away. Wow! Have a good one friend. ] (])


==Disambiguation link notification for October 19 ==
== WW, AbD and WP:AN ==

Thanks for trying o help. Nonetheless, Abd's "campaign", as you put it has come to him ignoring my attempts at being helpful and dissolved into his questioning my neutrality. I really can't cope with repeating myself to defend myself at the moment (too much real life stress to have online stress as well) so I'm leaving the project, albeit hopefully temporarily. Assuming this comes up while I'm "away", I hope you can point out why I'm not commenting. Best wishes ] (]) 11:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

== hello ==

can you help me out with more info about editing bots? i want to know how they work, thanks


ps: i think we need a special testing and construction area for new templates, tools and infoboxes.

cheers

] (]) 16:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

==]==

I actually hadn't looked to see what happened regarding this, figured it would take longer than that. Thank you for letting me know though, hopefully they will learn from the block and not resume their blanking. Although in the case they do resume, I will follow your instructions. I'm still a pretty new editor, and I always try and assume good faith. Sometimes though I just get the feeling that certain editors aren't here to build an encyclopedia. The whole always assume good faith is rather difficult at times. Have a good day, ] (]) 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

==Time for unprotection?==
]. It's been protected for a few months. It doesn't appear there was any edit war or active dispute. Do you suppose it could be dropped to semi? ] '']'' 01:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

:I don't think this is a good time to lift protection of any of the articles in what I describe as the 'NSS Syndrome.' This one is the subject of a dispute that actually appears to be unresolved, concerning controversial material targeting Misplaced Pages specifically.--] (]) 12:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::I have linked your comments to CHL's talkpage, and perhaps you and him could discuss the best way forward? I would note that CHL is suggesting semi-protection rather than none. ] (]) 12:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Thank you, Less. Perhaps the issue can be revisited once this Register furor dies down. --] (]) 12:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
::::For what it's worth, I think semi-protection is more appropriate than full protection. By the way, I don't plan to edit the actual article for various reasons although I may comment on the talk page. ] (]) 00:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. While I technically have the bit to unprotect, but I'm not an uninterested party. I will be editing the article, so I don't think it's appropriate for me to change it. I don't plan to add the recent ''Reg'' story though, and I actually agree with Janeyryan that it should be excluded from this BLP. It's not urgent, so I'm happy with leaving it be for a few more weeks. It would be a different matter if NSS were still protected. A lot of news has affected that subject, but it's appropriately on semi. I'll raise it on the talk page next time before asking you. ] '']'' 01:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
:I've opened the discussion on the article talkpage, so that hopefully more opinions can be gathered. I (a little late) recall that the talkpage is also protected, so that may have to be lifted to allow full participation in the debate. ] (]) 12:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

== Blocks ==

I concur. I just wanted to wait to see if they might edit again. I was considering protecting BoogaLouie's page, but it slipped my mind momentarily. ''''']]]''''' 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

==Hello==

"01:22, 17 August 2008 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) (14,097 bytes) (→Copyright Infringement silly billy"

Was that aimed at me? While a minor personal attack, it's not very civil to make belittling comments towards me. I wouldn't do the same to you. I hope you have a great day. Regards, Dean.--] (]) 01:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

==Your comments on my talk page==
My talk page is currently semi-protected, so, as my account is too new to edit semi-protected pages, I can't reply there :( Anyway, I've been editing for about a year as an IP, and just recently created an account. While I thank you for your concern about my userpage, I'll be fine :) ] (]) 20:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

==blog source on ](from the ANI)==
i still haven't seen any compelling reason as to why it's appropriate for this blog to be included into the article and edit warred over its inclusion. the original source is allegedly a college newspaper that doesn't appear to have a website or any archives available, but the source currently is just a blog which claims to be a reposting from a school paper. as an encyclopedia, i don't see how this blog passes as a reliable source, warrants much discussion, or edit warring over its inclusion. there is no guarantee that this is a faithful and accurate reposting of the original on the blog. since content wise, it's a pointless source, which adds nothing to the article, and comes from a blog, i really don't see why this should still be included. could you please let me know if you think it should be included still? i am willing to listen to an outsider's opinion. ] (]) 03:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

== Just so you know ==

LHvU, I'm losing it. As Bart's mentoring admin, I have to let you know that I am about one more incident away from going back to ] and building a very long and detailed case for Bart Versieck's banning. I am tired of all the disruption he partakes in, the little things just keep adding and adding up and I feel that all our efforts to turn him into a constructive editor are not getting through and that I may have to lay out the entirety of his disruption to the community to show its entirety. I already asked him not to pipe ] with "Second World War" when it serves no purpose. Maybe it's not that big of a deal, but you can only and then so many times. It's chronic with him. Say he understands, say he won't do something, then do it again and again and again because there are no consequences. Maybe you can explain to him the gravity of the situation, but one more anything, even so much as a tiny change to someone's talk page comments, and this is going to the community and a case will be made to ban. I have lost all patience with this. Cheers, ] 23:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:This is very strange. ] (]) 01:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::Sage and sound advice LHvU. That does seem to be the better way. I still hold a bit of hope that this expression of frustration will be my last though... thank you. Cheers, ] 16:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I am always terrible at choosing the right barnstar, but your sage adminship and infinite patience deserve recognition! Cheers, ] 16:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
|}
:::Yes: just keep up the good work. ] (]) 16:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

== Kristen Eriksen ==

Could you please explain why her being of Norwegian ancestry is going to be "the cause of spontaneous combustion among a lot of teenage contributors" more than if she was of any other ancestry? Thanks.--] (]) 07:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

==Re: blogs as a reliable source==
i took your advice and attempted to get a 3O over whether http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/02/020402.php is a reliable source, but it did not work out. no one responded because it was involving more than 2 editors. an RfC would be the next move up the bureaucratic procedure list, but that seems like a totally unnecessary waste of time and effort just for someone to step in and remove the link because it's a blog and blogs are not reliable sources. the blog adds nothing substantial to the article and it's a blog to begin with. the reason i posted it to an ANI is because i knew there were 3 editors involved in the article who were going to revert my sane attempts to remove the blog, and i figured if one admin just stepped in and brought some sanity to the situation and said "no blogs in encyclopedias" the situation would be resolved. well, an admin did do that, and the tendentious editors did their job and reverted it. can you please just state your opinion on the article? whether you are for the blog's inclusion or against it, i don't want to go through an RfC for something so petty and unnecessary. there is currently an rfc on an important matter in the article and it's been almost 25 days with no response from a single outside editor. ] (]) 00:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:oh, and just to give a little background on what i meant when i said there were 3 editors who will revert any sane attempts to fix the article, there was a gawker article (not a reliable source) last week specifically about the censorship on the ] article http://gawker.com/5037685/strange#viewcomments ] (]) 00:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

== Great ==

in both those edits. :D This must be my lucky week for spotting hilarity in the summaries. :) ] 23:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
:Praise from "battered squid (singular)" is praise indeed. ] (]) 23:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

== why you blocking when i am fixing the pages? ==

i work on adding content to page and others are vandalizing the page and why i get blocked??] (]) 06:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

:Recbon has already revandalized the merged ''Dragon Ball GT'' article and the Dragon Ball talk page again. -- ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 07:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

== Block Question ==

As the IP admitted to be the blocked sockpuppeteer, ], why was the IP only ? <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''-- ] <sub>]]</sub>'''</span> 00:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:Ok, thanks! <span style="font-family: tahoma">'''-- ] <sub>]]</sub>'''</span> 00:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== ==

Old friend has returned. A 6 month block would be appropriate here. ] (]) 16:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

:Good job! :-) ] (]) 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

== Duncan's, etc ==

Actually I realised that there was no article on ] which is a bigger hole in Misplaced Pages, so I decided to do that. As you've held the ring in various disputes in this area, could you add it to your watch list please? ] (]) 19:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:Okay, have done so. ] (]) 19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
::Thanks. ] (]) 20:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

== As you've just bumped into this, it seems... ==

As you've left a comment for JAS on his page regarding a redirect I think is related to his new article on ], I'd like to point out that the material he is adding is erroneous in the extreme (as I've noted on article talk). The reason none of the WP:FM editors has ever done this is precisely because nothing standard can be said about it. If people want to go look things up, there's plenty of books out there, and they're all different and of uncertain provenance. I'd also note he's gone ahead and wikilinked the article wherever possible, which is really not appropriate given the state that the article is in. Furthermore, given his interactions with myself and others on various Freemasonry articles, I do not feel that it is at all appropriate for him to be working in the Freemasonry outside of his expertise on the Roman Catholic viewpoint. He simply cannot evaluate source materials properly. ] (]) 20:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:I will reply here, so JASpencer (JAS?) can join in (I will note them in case they are not looking at this page).
:I remember from the ] article that it is extremely difficult to definitively say what Freemasons do (or say!) either as an individual grouping, or as the various Lodges and/or affiliated groups or whatever, since the "secrecy" that surrounds them means that there is no incontestable source/reference. This also means that no "claims" can be entirely - or at least, easily - refuted. However, as per Jahbulon, I think it would be fair to make clear that these are sources that are not recognised by whatever Freemsonry authority there might be - so Masonic ritual (the article) is a record of other parties interpretation of purported Masonic ritual. Have you looked at the references?
:I note your concerns regarding wikilinking - I noted the same to JAS regarding a link at Jahbulon, although that was only a redirect to ] (obviously already included) which I removed. I think wikilinking the Masonic ritual article is appropriate where there is good reason, providing the question of the definitiveness being resolved.
:The question of JAS editing any Freemason article is the same for anyone; if it is verifiable, adheres to NPOV, etc. then it can be added (and then changed/removed/restated/whatever, to the same principles). What "interaction" concerns do you have?
:Oh joy, re Roman Catholic-ism! I am aware of the anti-Freemasonry position of them (and other Christian churches) from the Jahbulon matter (again...) - as ever it is a matter of making clear the "position" of some sources, if they come from an interested party.
:I trust this helps. ] (]) 20:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
::Well, if the article is a copy of what's in main, all JAS has added in an incorrect lead that implies a religious rite, and a controversy section. He's expanded nothing else, and I think that should make it pretty obvious that the intention is a POV fork to make the anti-Christian or anti-clerical argument. ] (]) 21:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:::Can we remove the "implication" to make it an "allegation" or "interpretation"? I remember the debate whether Freemasonry (FM) is itself a religious grouping (and whether it is a Christian one) or not being one of the major issues. I would certainly wish to see that no definitive statement is made when it is disputed. Re controversy; I note this is one sentence - which is covered in the main article. Unless it is expanded, in relation to the rituals themselves, I see no reason for it to remain. I have noted JAS about this discussion (and also at whatever "Masonic ritual" is now called) and would prefer some agreement before things get radically changed/removed. ] (]) 21:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Ther should be no implication or interpretation - Masonic ritual is not ''"the various rituals that Freemasons practice during their meetings.'' That statement makes no sense, and isn't even referred to in the article. "Practicing of rituals" is an obvious attempt to make a religious ceremonial parallel, and Masonry does not self-identify as a religious group, period. Tax records do not give it a religious exemption, so the government does not consider it a religious organization either. ] (]) 21:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::I think there is some confusion over the meaning of ritual. Mostly it is taken to mean a solemn procedure (or arrangement of events) with religious overtones, or the "superstitious practices" found within cultures, or simply a series of events that are regularly practiced within informal or formal groups. What type of ritual are we talking about? ] (]) 21:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

:::Just to say, couldn't this be added to the article talk page? ] (]) 21:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
::::I have raised that question there; is there any likelihood of others getting involved, or should we keep this here and not have it in the article talk history? ] (]) 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

::::I forgot to answer the interactions portion of the question - my interaction concerns are indicated by the tone of ] and its obvious conspiracy intent, and behavior with respect to not only that artilce but also the recent Grand Lodge AfDs (with blatant statements of bias on my part with no proof of either that or of the notability of the subject), and then spurious claims of what makes either of the aforementioned topic areas notable ("Intrinsic notability" for Grand Lodges, and "well, the Prince of Wales can't be interested in all Lodges, can he?" for New Welcome - there is no policy support for either of these assertions). The sources JAS uses simply do not support the claims made, and many times he tries to create notability through bluelinking, not through sources, and has created a triple redirect in order to link every instance of Masonic ritual or ceremony to his new article. There is a clear pattern he follows, and when he gets caught, he blames bias rather than poor article quality, and then recreates deleted articles as spurious redirects. ] (]) 21:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::I will take a look re the first points. What recreated redirects of deleted articles? nb. It's getting late here, and I will look into all this and come back tomorrow. ] (]) 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

::::::He's probably talking about ] (redirected to Continental Freemasonry - Europe), ] (redirected to Continental Freemasonry - Africa) and ] (redirected to WEWN, the radio station on which he's a host). I don't think these are spurious. ] (]) 21:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Um, I have concerns with the first of those (and I haven't looked at the others) - but as mentioned I will look into all of them with fresh eyes tommorrow, and I want to be sure that my concerns are valid. ] (]) 21:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::If there are concerns then please let me know. Is there a policy that once an AfD has been passed it can't be revisited? ] (]) 22:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::My concerns are summed up in my query at ]. I do not see any reason why content that had been deemed non-notable should be largely re-added back into the article when it is a redirect, as happened with Grand Orient de Suisse and Grand Orient du Congo. I only noticed it when opening up the redirect history to get to the AfD discussion. If the content was needed to be kept for future reference, it could have been userfied - when it would remain in that history, easily accessible. I have asked if there is any relevant policy regarding the redirect content history at WT:AfD, and will see what they say. Your comments would be appreciated. ] (]) 20:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
::::To reply to a question that Less had earlier... what do we mean by "ritual" in a Masonic context? You come closest with "simply a series of events that are regularly practiced within informal or formal groups". Essentially the ritual is a scripted play, with "opening the lodge", "conducting business", "initiating candidates" and "closing the lodge" as the scenes within that play. However, because Freemasons take the lessons that are presented in that play seriously, it does have shades of the first meaning... at least in part. It ''is'' in some respects "a solemn procedure (or arrangement of events)" but ''without'' the religious overtones. ] (]) 12:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

=== Redirects and edit histories ===
There has been a response at ], and it looks as if the effected redirects will need to be deleted/undeleted. Other than the two mentioned above, are there any more that need looking at (and do any contain material that would be wanted userfied)? A concern that I didn't comment on at AfD, is that the Grande Orient de Suisse edit history "starts" with MSJapan placing an A7 speedy on the content... where is the edit history of that content? If it is caught within another redirect (and please don't let that be an AfD delete as well. Thinking about it, it would better be a delete than a merge - because I am better with the axe than the needle and thread) then I am going to have to look at the edit history of that as well... ] (]) 21:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

:I'm not sure that the subheading is an accurate summary of the discussion you linked to. The question raised was about putting in the previous article into the history of the redirect (and I admit I was wrong) and not about the idea of putting in redirects where there is a deleted article. By the way there are no more cases such as this. I'm not sure what the point is about the redirects, ] may be able to help. ] (]) 22:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
::Um... Okay, I trust the rename is good for you?
::My point, as far as the redirects go, is that GFDL is one of those areas I really don't do much work in, since it goes beyond my "free and easy" competence - and if I started getting involved then the pitiful article work I do these days will suffer (perhaps no loss to the community, but I like to read the stuff I copy edit!) I looked into the three examples given by you, and I got worried about the content "re-added" (admittedly for the wrong reasons - I thought it "not on" to put deleted material back into the history, because it had been decided as inappropriate already, rather than the GFDL matter) on two of them - the last has no content other than the redirect and has never been deleted.
::Are you able to help regarding Grande Orient de Suisse? I wish to be able to find the older edit history. Again, the clock is winning so I will have to resume this tomorrow. ] (]) 22:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
:::(To LHvU) Yes, the title's much better, thank you. Sorry for the touchiness. I have not found any alternative titles. ] was the original poster. ] (]) 22:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

:::I fail to see the need for keeping the redirects at all - redirects imply content at the target, and there is none of value. Is it fair to say that the consensus is that stashing deleted page content within page revisions is behavior that is to be discouraged? ] (]) 22:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
::::"I fail to see the need for keeping the redirects at all" - because they may have failed the AfD but they are still search terms. It is the topic not the previous content that is being reflected. ] (]) 22:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
::::(ec)"Redirects are cheap" is a phrase that is often bandied about, and not everyone knows the correct name of the article so every bit of help is useful (is there a redirect of ] to ]? and if not, why not?). It appears, however, that having the redirect history contain deleted content is inappropriate, so I will be deleting it again in due course. Do you know anything about Grande Orient de Suisse, as you tagged it A7 speedy? ] (]) 22:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::I have deleted/undeleted the two Grand(e) Lodge articles back to a basic redirect. ] (]) 11:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::(tangential statement) BTW, the reason that redirect doesn't exist (besides the fact that onomatopoeia is different in every language) is because the pattern is wrong. You missed the middle of the phrase, and it's actually "Der der der, der der da-der, der der der da-der". The first two portions ("Der der der, der der da-der") would probably be legit as a redir to ], believe it or not. ] (]) 15:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I bow to your acknowledged expertise in this matter, as well as the fact I prefered the stuff that started ]... ] (]) 21:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

===Notability, and "redirects do not need to comply to NPOV"===

I speedied it because I was unable to find anything notable about it, and the initial page was a dicdef-style definition of "A is B part of C". It's not the only Grand Lodge in Switzerland, and every hit I get on it not on its own page merely confirms that it exists as far as a webpage goes. Its own webpage doesn't assert notability; it only has 18 lodges in its jurisdiction (not 20 as, and a cursory scan of the schedules of those constituent lodges doesn't show anything notable. It publishes a magazine three times a year, which is also not a rarity for a grand body anywhere. Its founding principles are no different than those of any other grand body in its branch, which should be discussed in the main article on Continental Freemasonry.
Redirects may be cheap, but when you need to know French or German to glean any information about the group, there's a tangential relation to ], especially when the accuracy of the translations used to generate the article is questionable - various "missing words" edit summaries indicate that pages are being fed through Babelfish and are then pasted in directly to articles, and they're obviously not being looked at to even correct grammar until a later pass-through (if it occurs). The translated material has turned out wrong on at least two articles so far, and so the motivation to pursue these topics as informational escapes me - what good is an article that's wrong and cannot easily be corrected? From a technical standpoint, this material propagates through WP mirrors in less than five minutes after creation - that simply exacerbates the spread of bad info. ] (]) 02:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:One of those bad info articles is ], which also looks like a c/p job - the second source is dated as 7/19/07 for apparent access, over a year before the article was created this time around. The GL of Venezuela article with the ridiculously long name was another one with incorrect info. ] (]) 02:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
* The nutshell at ] says;{{nutshell|If a topic has received significant coverage in ] ] that are ] of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.}} The Grande Loge Suisse Alpina, as is, does not establish notability. However, there is no point in going for AfD if it is going to then become a redirect should it be deleted; I would propose that it be changed to a direct immediately, this way the edit history remains (as there are no GFDL concerns) and it can be restored as a stub article should a reliable source be located. (It also means that anyone searching for GLSA will not be tempted to start a new article, if it is deleted and not made into a redirect). It is also noted at ] that NPOV does not apply to redirects, so the "suitability" of an article does not impact upon it as a redirect; therefore the basis that GLSA is not "proper" is not relevant, it is a simple search parameter. I suggest that any other such article with these concerns be treated in the same manner, so they can be quickly listed as redirects with histories intact, as can any future creation of Lodge stubs - with history '''that otherwise complies with WP policy''' - pending location of reliable sources. Regarding the existing articles, is it possible to provide a list of "notability queried" articles for changing to redirect? Any article that is challenged should be taken to AfD, with redirect as the desired outcome. Would this proposal satisfy all parties, or should I request a wider forum (WP:AN) for input? ] (]) 11:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
::My concern here is that it will create a precedent for "if I can't prove it's notable per policy, but that it exists, I can make a redirect for it," though that does not appear to be a purpose of redirects as noted ] or the reasoning employed on ] (they both imply the point is to allow for later creation, not to prevent it), so I'd prefer a wider consensus on the issue. In this case, also, the recreations were done tendentiously without location of sources, and also involved misuse of DRV.

::If the idea here is rather to prevent article creation without sources, prior deletion notices appear on deleted pages for that same purpose, and they more solidly show that an article should not have been recreated. A redirect can simply be undone at will, and there's no real recourse to say it should not have been undone. I also think it goes against the consensuses reached in the various AfDs - many were overwhelmingly delete with no suggestion of a redirect or merge, and I think to do otherwise sets a different precedent that "if my article gets AfDed, I can just make it a redirect", with the implication that it can be recreated later despite the AfD outcome indicating deletion. Because this will again cause wider policy concerns, I would like wider consensus from the community on the course of action. I can provide a list of articles, though. ] (]) 15:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm happy enough for a wider consensus; although it is understood that as WP policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive it wouldn't hurt to consider that redirect might be a legitimate outcome at an AfD (which would carry such a notice). I was considering turning the contended stub/non-notable articles into redirects as a middle way to please both parties, but I see your point in having redirects undone (per AGF, innocently) and using the disputed content as the basis of the new article (we can discuss ways to warn people about this?). I would wait upon JAS' response before looking to agree a way forward. ] (]) 21:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::I disagree with MSJ's description of the concensus. The concensus was that within the articles there was no proof of notability. But that is not the same as proof of no notability. This is a terribly important point.
:::::If AfDs that were decided on notability had to meet the second test then they would be almost impossible to get through.
:::::] (]) 19:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::AfD's have a five day minimum period (exception for WP:SNOW) so that concerns such as sources/indication of notability can be addressed. It is not unreasonable to consider that a decision of "delete: non-notable" generally means that it is unlikely that notability can be presently be provided - but not notability will never be determined. For the purposes of the encyclopedia, "non-notable" means just that ''until'' evidence is found to the contrary. ] (]) 21:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::But that can hardly be a reason for throwing around accusations of "tendentious" redirects. ] (]) 21:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::IMO, it's an opinion rather than an accusation. However, I am seeing this as something of a dispute under the lines of "inclusionist"/"deletionist" - but specifically involving (aspects of) Freemasonry. I have been doing some little back reading, and I am seeing some entrenched positions and not the most civil (or good faith) tone from both sides. I had hoped that there might be a compromise, such as creating redirects rather than stubs that would be AfD'd (I saw MSJ's valid concern, but hoped there might have been an "understanding" over it), and that I might broker a deal that allowed both of you - I have seen both BlueBoar and Dwain involved, but consider you the two main protagonists - to get much of what you wanted. I am now of the opinion that perhaps a formal avenue of dispute resolution be tried, if matters are not progressed over the next few days. Complaints about the others tone or choice of language is not going to get anything resolved. ] (]) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::You're right there has been a history, although it's more than simply mutual exasperation. On the main idea to sort the issue out I may be slow but the usual behaviour with stubs with unclear notability has been to put notability tags, and if the assertions of notability are not backed up to put citation requests in. Only after this does the AfD or Prod tend to come in. I then see a different, more aggressive, deletionism practiced and advocated against essentially harmless articles. What's the gain for Misplaced Pages to delete these articles? This is why I'm worried on the redirects. As soon as they are AfD'd won't the argument be that they are simply un-notable subjects rather than subjects that haven't produced any notability. ] (]) 23:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::There is a difference between non-notable, the language that WP uses, and un-notable; non-notable indicates that notability cannot currently be established through reasonable research, un-notable takes the unreasonable view that notability can never be established whatever research is conducted - and nobody can ever say that that is going to be the case for all time. All that WP requires is that the subject is notable, and there is a third party source referencing that notability (WP requires it to be ''verifiable'' rather than verified), and that notability is indicated at the creation of the article. The list of "intrinsically" notable subjects are quite small (places of human habitation... and...?) and I cannot recall any type of organisation that criteria applies to. ] clarifies the expected minimum to maintain an article. ] (]) 09:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) A stub should have some possibility of expansion. A point to note is that Blueboar for one feels that JAS creates stubs that cannot be expanded (or, perhaps more correctly, that he never bothers to work on ever again), and then links them all over the place to have some sort of superficial notability. I think this speaks again to editing behavior - if an article is to be created in good faith by anyone, the creator need to consider first whether or not it is something that will conform to policy, rather than just puppeting the same info listed on one website and trying to make it look like it conforms to policy. ] (]) 03:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:As I have pointed out to JAS above, the primary requirement is notability which can be sourced. Some articles may never grow further than a stub, since other than the notability there is nothing else to add. This is fine, since it serves an encyclopedic purpose. I can only refer again to the notability nutshell at the start of this section that I copied over; if an article satisfies that criteria, it stays - if not, then we have to decide what should happen to the information. ] (]) 09:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

===List of queried articles===
Here's the list. It has everything I have queried with its outcome, as well as what I would like queried. I also added articles that may have been queried and deleted, but the edit would have been deleted from my contribs, the deletion history was wiped out by the redirect creation, and i don't remember offhand what actually happened.

====Articles that were queried and found nn ====

Recreated as redirects:

*] - prod or CSD, AfD
*] - prod or CSD, AfD
*] - CSD
*] - CSD

All of these had their deletion history removed by the redirect overlay.

====Articles that were queried and found notable====
For completion's sake, the following articles were queried, and were found notable '''because the article content was found to be incorrect during the course of the AfD'''; the articles both claimed the body in question is part of the GodF tradition (the CSDs and later AfDs were for lack of attestation of this). It turned out they were in fact ''UGLE'', and had sources once they could be found. Details of the issues are in the relevant AfDs.

*]
*]

====Should be queried for redirect, deletion, or merge====
*] - Bad use of sources and possible undue weight. The sources used only establish existence, and Gould's ''History of Freemasonry'' was mis-cited (I fixed it); Kessinger reprints old books, not new ones (again, why one needs to know the provenance of sources in the topic area), and there's a big difference to notability in saying GLSA was mentioned in a book in 2003 as opposed to 1911. I have the volume in question stored someplace, I think, and I would bet that there's only a paragraph on the group in the whole volume.
**Action required: PROD or AfD re notability, or redirct. ''LHvU''
***Why is there a big difference in notability in 1911 and 2003? Once notable, always notable. Anyway why not simply have a "Freemasonry in Switzerland" article as then pre-GL history (such as Coustos) and the anti-Masonic movement of the 1930s can be discussed as well as talking about any other jurisdictions. It could act as a launch pad when sections get big enough for other articls and it would be hard to deny that this is notable. ] (]) 06:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
****Much the same as why Encyclopedia Brittanica 1911 edition (which is copyright expired) is not always the best guide for notability; an over emphasis on Western Culture and Victorian values may not mean it is as reliable as the current edition. Notability is indeed supposed to be permanent, but sources providing evidence can be open to interpretation. ] (]) 13:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
*****How does that work? If there are a number of sources independent of the subject, etc, how does it matter when or where the sources where from? ] (]) 16:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
******Think "Geography of the Earth"; how much weight do we give to the Bible (and other religious works) against something published in the last 25 years? Geography is notable, the Bible is notable, the Bible comments how the geography of the Earth came to be, thus it is clearly a good source and reliable source... Nope. That a group of educated gentlemen, who may well have had Masonry affiliations themselves, born in the 19th Century should consider a Grande Lodge notable is not necessarily an indication of a current understanding of lasting notability. ] (]) 20:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
*******Still can't get it. This seems to be presentism on a massive scale. ] (]) 23:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
*] - supposedly notable, but has not been worked on to add new information not already in the main article, nor has it had ''correct'' information added, despite vehement claims of notability and necessity. There's a triple redirect buried in here as well that needs to be cleaned out.
**Action required: Notability template, AfD if not resolved in reasonable time. (Ask for help re triple redirects - beyond my competence) ''LHvU''
*** RfDed the plural ] and redirected the articles using it to the singular ] (with s tacked on), which will un-nest that mess. ] (]) 20:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
*] - 14 months with no expansion; 5 lodges in jurisdiction.
**Action required: PROD/AfD if notability not established in reasonable time. ''LHvU''
***Again, what about ]? This would be especially useful when there was the stop starting of lodges being set up and suppressed? ] (]) 06:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
*] or ] - My merge when the book article was one line was undone, and now the book article is longer than the bio article. There's nothing to indicate the notability of either the author or the book other than the existence of both articles. The book article should be redirected to the bio article to fill it out.
**Action required: Merge Author to Book, bio details give background. ''LHvU''
***I don't think a merge is a good idea. This book is probably the most influential "mainstream" Protestant critique of Freemasonry, at least of the twentieth century. It may be ironic that Hannah later became a Catholic priest, but his work is cited by a number of religious bodies on their worries about the compatability of Freemasonry with mainstream Christianity, this includes both the Catholic bishop's conference of the United States and the General Synod of the Church of England. I've put this into the article. I'd also suggest that a notability tag would have been better on the old article rather than a merge. ] (]) 09:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
****The book is notable, and likely more notable than the author. By keeping the book article and merging in the authors bio details you get the basis on who wrote the book within the more notable subject. Other than the book, what is the authors claim to notability. ] (]) 13:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
*****Hannah was more then his book. He started the first debate in the Church of England on the compatability of Freemasonry (before Darkness Visible) and after that published Christian by degrees and left both England and the Anglican Church to become a ] priest in Canada. ] (]) 17:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
*] - possibly CSDed, don't remember, history covered by redurect creation.
**Action required: None - plain redirect. ''LHvU''
***Not CSD'd as far as I'm aware, just created from CLIPSAS page. (Same with Camaroun) ] (]) 06:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
*] - English language redirect of ], which ''was'' CSDed.
**Action required: None - plain redirect. ''LHvU''
*] - redirects to an article that contains no info related to it; may have been previously CSDed.
**Action required: None - plain redirect. ''LHvU''
*] - CSD removed; decided to leave nn tag to see what would happen, and nothing did other than finding one of the two sources dead.
**Action required: PROD/AfD to redirect (where?) ''LHvU''
***Again a "Freemasonry in x" (probably Denmark, but could start off on a regional basis) could work here. ] (]) 06:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
*], ], ] - essentially three articles about Grand Lodges created for the same purpose of recognition at different times. The reason is notable, the groups aren't. Better to make a Freemasonry in Belgium article out of them.
**Action required: Yes these three could be merged, giving a cohesive history. I suggest that the below article could be included too. ''LHvU''
***No objection to the common article, but the Grand Orient of Belgium is far bigger and historically more important than the other two bodies, and it is quite likely that it will get its own article quite quickly (especially as a member of the group posts as ]). ] (]) 09:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
*] - there's a title typo anyway, but this article has had nothing substantial added to it since April of 2007 when it was created. Redirect to ], maybe.
**Action required: Fix typo, merge content into "Freemasonry in Belgium" article '''in seperate section''' since women/Freemasonry is likely notable (clear link to ]) ''LHvU''
***See ] for new version of article. ] (]) 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
*] - Awful. Can be recreated when information is available.
**Action required: PROD/AfD, to redirect. ''LHvU''
*] - largely uncited, and the main source is of questionable validity - an established and reputable company should not be using pop-under classmates.com and online degree ads.
**Action required: Possibly the most complex here; needs third party references, but appears notable in that it appears influential in Liberian politics. As regards the source - a country that is as poor yet commercial orientated as Liberia would indicate this is fairly usual. ''LHvU''<br>
] (]) 04:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:I have placed my suggestions (ignore the language) under each example - and if JAS or anyone else has other suggestions, queries or whatever, please can they follow that process. I would point out again that redirects should simply be regarded as search parameters, and that no authority is conferred by their use (the notability resides in the article directed to, only). Having a full and proper title of a Lodge redirecting to an umbrella article confers the same "prestige" as a mis-spelling of the umbrella article. ] (]) 10:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

::General comments.
::I would suggest a compromise as being geographic articles rather than organisational articles. Freemasonry in Latin America is clearly notable and so Grand Lodge/Orient articles can redirect to there until more information is found for the Grand Lodge (if it ever is). It would also have the beneficial effect of being able to talk about other aspects - particularly the anti-Masonic campaigns which are harder to show the relevance on articles about the Grand Orient de France. There has been a concern expressed by Blueboar that this would be a magnet for conspiracy theorists, but I disagree as most anti-Freemasons tend to be concerned about their own area. Anyway if it is a target for conspiracy theorists, who do you want dominating the Google rankings on "Freemasonry in Latin America"? Misplaced Pages or freemasonrywatch? (This is why I think the general deletionism is so self-defeating, but it's another argument for another time).
::It's good to see the point about redirects being made clearly, and I hope that it puts the whole argument to bed.
::There is one question about the datelessness of notability (Switzerland) and a quibble about the Grand Orient of Belgium's relative notability. These are in specific sections.
::The only area where I strongly disagree (not counting the geographic vs organisational point) is the Hannah book. Again I've put my concerns under this area, although I accept that the older article did not assert notability. That has changed.
::] (]) 09:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

== Missing in Action ==

Your email, that is. I have a feeling there may be a technical problem with the email interface, so I've sent you an email direct so you have my addy. ] (]) 13:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

==block==
i change my ip address which i can do when ever i feel like and now im not blocked any more and now i can edit pages so blocking me wont work. i reset it again and i wont stop <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Corrections ==

Regarding your entry in :

* "Stanley Accrington": yes, a reference to the football club, but I also had the songist in mind, as he first came up with the name.
* "Chumbly": a hastily spelt '']'' reference.
* "Skinheed": no, not ''Red Dwarf'', but a very early '']'' character from back when it was an amateur publication.
* "Fordite": also known as ].

Right, I'm done. Cheers, ] (]) 22:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

:Less - just read your bit on WR, you might be wrong about inferring age from the Accrington Stanley reference - I don't remember the team, but in the mid eighties there was a popular advert over here for milk - see . regards --] (]) 11:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
::Ah, but in the 80's there was an assumption that the adult audience would "get" the AS reference - and those who were recently adults at that time are in their forties now. I also recall the Viz character, when it was much more anarcho than humorous, which again dates it to someone my age... Cheers, anyhow. ] (]) 11:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

::::Your age? I'm only 38. --] (]) 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't even know if you're Frostie Jack - you might be George, for all I know. ] (]) 19:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::Good. I would hope the CheckUsers aren't being so free with the info they have. But I would also hope that they, or their associates, aren't arranging to have pages vandalised just to catch me out. That would be bad form. ] (]) 21:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

== ] ==

I think I may have found another ] sock. I saw that you were involved before. Here's my report: ]. ] (]) 15:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

== Thank you ==

I just wanted to say thank you very much for your help with ] and I will keep an eye out for an influx of IP accounts on the articles. ] (]) 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:Cool. ] (]) 00:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
::Well that did not take long. Looks like ] is ]'s sock puppet with these two edits, and . ] (]) 07:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

==Thanks!==
Thank you so much for blocking Royce Mathew's IP. Though I still wonder how long he's blocked, so I can brace myself should there be another attack ;) what you did was solely kind and I really appreciated. Thank you!


An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ].
Ah, and here's a barnstar for your work :)


(].) --] (]) 19:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
''']''' would like to give ] the following barnstar for helping her with preventing personal attacks :)
]


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
Thanks! ]] 21:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:Great ;) Ah, I learned a new word! Would it be possible to protect the IP's talk page, as well as all my pages? He's been vandalising mine a ''lot.'' If this persists, should I apply for semi-protection on the Pirates of the Caribbean articles? ]] 21:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
::All right, thank you ;) ]] 21:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


Hello,


The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
==Creating a ]==


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
Normally when people do I click on the link and write something funny. Unfortunately I can't this time because the title excludes me from participating, as it does you. So I'll have to resssssssiiiist! But I did want to say that I loved your edit summary for this one :-) ] | ] 22:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:Cool. ] (]) 22:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
== Block ==


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Did you seriously only block the user for 15 mintues?! Like that is going to do any good. <font face="papyrus">]]</font> 22:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:"I meant it to be for 15 minutes and 30 seconds"...is that suppose to be some smartass comment or what? If so, it is not appreciated or funny. 15 minutes and 30 seconds is a ridiculously short block and won't solve anything. I shouldn't have to be harassed by a new user, who is complaining because he isn't getting his way, on his own comments being removed, because he no longer likes them. I told him several times to stop, and he continued. In the future, I won't come back to you if he continues, I will go to an admin who will block for a appropriate amount of time.<font face="papyrus">]]</font> 23:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
::I can solve the problem, but you are not going to like it! Remove his comments from your talk page. Problem solved. ] | ] 23:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
::: Ya, block me for what, not pleasing a user, by giving him his way...ya, ok. <font face="papyrus">]]</font> 23:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
::: And Theresa, I'm not going to delete comments, because some user doesn't want it shown that he is ridiculous in his comments. <font face="papyrus">]]</font> 00:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Why not? ] | ] 00:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


Kind Regards,
==72.91.214.42 block==


]
Thanks for blocking this one. The ] page is under seige from spammers at the moment and we need to get things under control. ] (]) 15:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
:Cool.] (]) 15:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
== Palin stuff ==
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 -->


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
Mind taking another Seems to be supported to extend your protection a teeny bit. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 16:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
== Hi! ==
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Nice to know you. Thank you for rvv to my user page. Happy fighting! ] <small>(])</small> 16:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
== Semi Protection ==


</div>
I've asked for you to be SP'd for the moment. I hope you don't mind, I just can't follow the debate above. ] (]) 16:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->

Latest revision as of 00:10, 19 November 2024

SEMI-RETIRED This user is no longer very active on Misplaced Pages.
If you leave a message here this editor will possibly reply... as I still have notification enabled. I, however, am semi retired and would be very grateful for anyone who is not requiring my assistance on a previous matter, or not making a social visit, to give all due accord to the notice at the top of the page and this notice and abstain from bothering me. Such irritations may garner a response that could be less than cordial... please be gentle. or responding to a request/comment generated by me, to gently pass on by without disturbing the equilibrium.
Mark

Archives 
"won" "too" three  "fore" "fie've" 
 "sicks" "'S 'eaven!" "ate" "Nein!" 
 "TEN...sion..." "eel 'eaven" "'twere elve'" "fur teen" "fought e'en"



Archives 
Abtract, Collectonian & Sesshomaru Freemasonry

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Nice to see you Mark. I hope you're well. --kingboyk (talk) 23:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I am, thank you, Steve (? I hope, it has been rather a long time!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
It is I, LeClerc Steve! Well remembered, as it's been not rather a long time but a very long time! :) --kingboyk (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Do miss having LHVU areound that's for sure but understand the step away from the madness. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Of course, your name is noted on your Userpage - but I only checked that just a moment ago; I was never one that thought it necessary to check the sources before committing to publish... as you might remember! LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Lol! Sense of humour and attitude intact; account-not-hijacked confirmed :) Anyway, good to see you mate, I'll leave you in peace now. --kingboyk (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I was wrong, it's today ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Do you need the earlier one back? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll tell you when I run out of kindness ;) - I have someone on the Main page who would be 100 today, DYK, but also 2 who died, see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh my!

I had no idea you were still - or again - kicking around here. Good to see you! (Of course I see you in that other place too but seeing LessHeard vanU is a treat!) I wonder how the old gang are doing. Stay well! Tvoz/talk 02:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Heya! I read the 'pedia for fun these days, and hit random article when I have a few minutes to spare. If I see something I can improve - like an USA article that neglects to mention that it is such - then I do a little edit. I log in to take responsibility for it. I have a few pages I still keep a watch on, as well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Reading this (nearly) makes me want to creak back into action ... Abtract Abtract (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Lustre yet undimmed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
lovely phrased - here, I have more for you, cake even, - to uplift while we have to miss Flyer22, Yoninah and SlimVirgin, and RexxS for different reasons, and too many others, - check out Die Fliege - the fly on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Ha ...

So you are popping your head in once in a while. Glad to see that. Always good to see a member of the Editor's Hall of Fame around. :-) Hope you and yours are well Mark. — Ched (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

...and you, too! LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Damn...

Sometimes dipping in results in a little scalding... LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

More in response to the Precious Anniversary posts, but under this heading because reasons. While the deaths are sad and deleterious to the project, it is inevitable. However, the stupidity resulting in the cessation of RexxS contributions provokes a response more in the nature of exasperation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Carleen source?

Hallo Mark, I am delighted to see that you are still occasionally editing, as my enquiry relates to an article you created in 2006!

You created Carleen, which in 2009 was turned into a redirect to Breage. Today there was some discussion about Carleen (disambiguation) which included mention of "when the place in Wales became a redirect", and I followed up out of curiosity and created a page for Carleen again over that redirect.

Your original stub gave the name derivation, but with no ref. Have you got a source for that? (I imagine a book of Cornish place-name origins beside your desk, optimistically). Please add it to the article, sourced, if you can. Thanks. PamD 22:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Doubtless I have had many Cornish name source books over the years, any of which may have contained an entry for Carleen... but none now close to hand. Most publications are local, and are unlikely to qualify as reliable sources. WP:OR will provide you with the name; "Car" meaning 'fort' or more likely 'defendable dwelling/place' and "Leen" (or "lene" or "lean") meaning 'Stone(y)', which is likely how the various authors have come to the translation. If ever I find anything which seems like a peer reviewed book or website I will endeavour to include it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Yuletide Felicitations

If you are reading this, then you are exactly one of those people to whom I would like to wish all the best for the Season and those to come. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

And to you. Great to see that you're around(ish). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!

Bishzilla thanks the little Less for his thanks and awards him a much belated but affectionate Happy New Era card. bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 15:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC).

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah... ten years? I misremember it well! LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

If you read this, then you are most likely in need of Seasonal Cheers - so, just for you, "Yay Winter! Go! Go! Go!" 12:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Well hello and happy new year to you too! Always good to run into old friends in old places. I'm not here much anymore either. See you on FB. Tvoz/talk 23:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Greg J. Harrison, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Allorhynchium chinense, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diurnal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Enchanted Forest Water Safari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)