Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:06, 30 August 2008

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

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

Caveat Should I receive information by private means I shall consider that the sender has waived any claim of copyright or privacy on their part of the message and has obtained such permission on the part of any third parties whose post(s) form part of the message. By communicating with me outside of 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. You may request privacy, and I may honour such a request, but I am not bound by it. Mark Slater(LessHeard vanU 00:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

Archives

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

Re. Heads up

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. There are definite signs that this is merely a case of newbies not understanding wiki policy. Thanks again for your help. Albion moonlight (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Securities fraud

This has been requested for unprotection. I am inclined to grant the request but given the circumstances would like your opinion. (If replying, please drop by my talk page.) Stifle (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Same for Naked short selling. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I just thought I would follow up on unprotecting the article. Cheers --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 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. --Marumari (talk) 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. --Marumari (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your clearing the recent vandalism. Thanks again.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Rollosmokes

If he starts in on his "The CW" antics again, we'll be right back on the WP:ANI page again. Baseball Bugs 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. Baseball Bugs 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? Baseball Bugs 12:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are against the rules. Why does he get to decide when or if to remove them? Baseball Bugs 13:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't care what he calls me. But he named 6 others, and they might. And as User:Neil 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. Baseball Bugs 13:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

He's back, and promising to resume the edit war. Baseball Bugs 16:02, 15 July 2008 (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. Baseball Bugs 18:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(You have archived your page, so I shall respond here) Him or me? Ah, well... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2008 (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. :) Baseball Bugs 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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. :) Baseball Bugs 20:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be starting again - he just reverted someone on WPSG, but he slipped in a "CW" only change, which was NOT part of the other edit he reverted. I've corrected his "mistake", but this bears watching. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 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. Baseball Bugs 17:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

He's still at it with the "CW" changes... - and again... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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. :) Baseball Bugs 23:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Today he got his second indefinite block in the space of a week. Is that a record? Baseball Bugs 13:26, 18 July 2008 (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. Baseball Bugs 13:31, 18 July 2008 (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. Baseball Bugs 19:33, 18 July 2008 (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. Baseball Bugs 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The blocking admin also wiped the talk page, including the "final shot" at all of us "vultures". Finis. Baseball Bugs 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. Baseball Bugs 22:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rollosmokes looks to be back, this time as User:Black Waves. I've moved the issue back to WP:ANI. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

BB, is you naked? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

sockpuppets

AlasdairGreen27 and his compliants are sockpuppets! PIO is a regular editor because his Italian persecutor user:Snowolf 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.87.9 (talk) 07:06, 17 July 2008 (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? 86.44.20.40 (talk)

LessHeardvanU, this ip is ranting back on Collectonian's talk page 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? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I just found out that this is a hopping ip, see also 86.44.28.52 and 86.44.28.16. The behaviour is similar indeed. And it is odd that the anon defends Abtract with vigor. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"ranting"? :)

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.

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. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

CSCWEM

Since you filed the RfAr, I thought you might be interesting in chiming in here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. –xeno (talk) 12:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks I was typing to you as you were typing to it. –xeno (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - I edit conflicted twice while posting there. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Bart Versieck...

...is asking for you to review the block. I've made my opinions known there. –xeno (talk) 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

and again

your presence is requested, at the usual venue. –xeno (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully the peeved factor was not apparent until, possibly, right at the end. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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, CP 22:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Did we ever decide whether or not he was allowed to reorganize talk pages? Because he's done it again. 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, CP 15:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

From the comments by User:Ryan Postlethwaite - 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Cheers, CP 16:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

it is minor, but it is more then just moving stuff around. why would someone edit a time stamp, i don't get it. Boneyard (talk) 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. Extremely sexy (talk) 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... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine actually. Extremely sexy (talk) 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 User:Ryoung122, despite a warning and agreement not to. Until he (Young) is unblocked, I believe that this applies to that. Cheers, CP 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 Pierre Picault. Extremely sexy (talk) 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 here, where my assertion seems to be supported. I do, however, agree that more review from different people would be prudent. Cheers, CP 20:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to a dispute between Canadians. Extremely sexy (talk) 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, CP 20:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It won't happen again. Extremely sexy (talk) 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, CP 20:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Re Abtract

I don't understand why the block duration was changed. I read the comments on User talk:Abtract but I don't see anything in regards to a "last chance" or the sort. How come? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 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? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 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 - Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that's okay. And you're very welcome. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 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. Ncmvocalist (talk) 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. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

your concerns

the user in question was blocked over WP:DISRUPT, not because they were in a "content dispute". See the reply on my talkpage. dab (𒁳) 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. Tan ǀ 39 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 WP:UAA. 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):

Image:NewCanaanCTHighSchEntrance07252007.JPG

Image:NorwalkCTFormerPoliceHQ09032007.JPG

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

Regards, Noroton (talk) 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mess at United Arab Emirates - how fixed?

Could you spare the time to give me a very brief idea of how you fixed the vandalism at United Arab Emirates 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. Karenjc 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 United Arab Emirates 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 Template:Wikia or Template:Monarchies. I feel a lot more clued up now. Thanks again for your time. Karenjc 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? --Blechnic (talk) 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. --Blechnic (talk) 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. --Blechnic (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, I am overly fond of absurdist literature. --Blechnic (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar

A request for arbitration which you commented on has been opened, and is located here. 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, Ryan Postlethwaite 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. FootballPhil (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Quite a monster. Quite. :) Okiefromokla 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My value system

In case you've forgotten here is where you made comments against me

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 WP:Civil in my opinion, but they are completely dickardly.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Beam 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 nigger and kyke, 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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. Beam 04:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You have mail

And, lucky you, it's from me! Risker (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What, is Lar hiding or something..? LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, 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, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

comment on block

Hi, you blocked a user FResearcher recently, and I commented on the block. Would appreciate your reply. Thanks. Lakinekaki (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Will respond there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Heather Mills

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 Nandesuka is trying to start a fight. I put this down to the fact that I was instrumental in getting Jeremy Clarkson 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,

It's calmed down a bit, funnily enough. Although you never know... :)--andreasegde (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Beatleing about

Hi, thought you might be interested in this new article by a new editor Phillips sound recording services, 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, DuncanHill (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering....

you're pretty familiar at this point with my complaints about User:Dwain. 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).

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 John Salza. 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 this diff followed by this diff, where Dwain has cut and pasted the Salza article into his talk and then undid the revision to hide it.

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? MSJapan (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Siouxsie and the banshees editorial problem

Hello, I invite you to sort out a recently problem encountered on the Siouxsie and the Banshees. 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 The Cure, The Smiths, Joy Division, killing Joke, 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 The cure 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. carliertwo (Carliertwo) 05:09, 1 august 2008 (UTC)

I will look over this this evening (my time). LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I might have a potential move-vandalism and general vandalism problem. BeerBelly82, TitleRanch903, and BuffaloSam. The latter of the three left Misplaced Pages in December of 07 and came back yesterday. The others appear to be new accounts.

BeerBelly82 moved the Johnstown/Altoona Television Market template to Template:Johnstown/Altoona/State College TV, 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.

BuffaloSam has moved two radio 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.

To me, this seems like move-vandalism and general vandalism. I could be wrong, but as Kubigula and Firsfron are out, I bring it to your attention. Thanks...NeutralHomer 23:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this has been sorted out by another admin. Take Care...NeutralHomer 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It was 7:35pm when I posted :) All turned out well. Take Care and Have a Great Sunday...NeutralHomer 15:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which did not succeed with 30 in support, 28 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks again for the support!

—CycloneNimrod 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:ANI

Well, your effort is coming back like this. from Carl Daniels (talk · contribs). More information would be here.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, however, I receive the same complaint from another user, Btzkillerv (talk · contribs) 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 this. 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.--Caspian blue (talk) 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I hope they understand your instruction. --Caspian blue (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request for your review

User_talk:Arataman_79#responding_to_the_issue is requesting an unblock - it seems he's willing to communicate with other editors now. Since you blocked him, I defer to your judgement. Hersfold 21:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 22:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Circumcision

Do I care about what you think? No. Signsolid (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2008 (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. Dwain (talk) 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? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, August 1st is "some weeks" away. Wow! Have a good one friend. Dwain (talk)

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 Fritzpoll (talk) 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

Btzkillerv (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Tq6993

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, Landon1980 (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Time for unprotection?

Gary Weiss. 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? Cool Hand Luke 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.--Janeyryan (talk) 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Less. Perhaps the issue can be revisited once this Register furor dies down. --Janeyryan (talk) 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. Cla68 (talk) 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. Cool Hand Luke 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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. bibliomaniac15 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.--Manboobies (talk) 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 :) Kristen Eriksen (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

blog source on Tucker Max(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. Theserialcomma (talk) 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 WP:ANI 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 twice not to pipe World War II with "Second World War" when it serves no purpose. Maybe it's not that big of a deal, but you can only claim ignorance and then do the same thing again 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, CP 23:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is very strange. Extremely sexy (talk) 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, CP 16:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I am always terrible at choosing the right barnstar, but your sage adminship and infinite patience deserve recognition! Cheers, CP 16:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes: just keep up the good work. Extremely sexy (talk) 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.--Whatever She Sings, We Bring (talk) 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. Theserialcomma (talk) 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 Tucker Max article http://gawker.com/5037685/strange#viewcomments Theserialcomma (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Great

Amusing edit summaries in both those edits. :D This must be my lucky week for spotting hilarity in the summaries. :) Acalamari 23:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Praise from "battered squid (singular)" is praise indeed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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??Recbon (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Block Question

As the IP admitted to be the blocked sockpuppeteer, User:I'm On Base, why was the IP only blocked for 31 hours? -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Your

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

Good job! :-) Utan Vax (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Duncan's, etc

Actually I realised that there was no article on Masonic ritual 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? JASpencer (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, have done so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. JASpencer (talk) 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 Masonic ritual, 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. MSJapan (talk) 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 Jahbulon 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 Freemasonry (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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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. MSJapan (talk) 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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. MSJapan (talk) 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? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to say, couldn't this be added to the article talk page? JASpencer (talk) 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? LessHeard vanU (talk) 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 New Welcome Lodge 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. MSJapan (talk) 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

He's probably talking about Grand Orient de Suisse (redirected to Continental Freemasonry - Europe), Grand Orient du Congo (redirected to Continental Freemasonry - Africa) and John Salza (redirected to WEWN, the radio station on which he's a host). I don't think these are spurious. JASpencer (talk) 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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? JASpencer (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My concerns are summed up in my query at WT:AfD#clarification re redirects. 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirects and edit histories

There has been a response at WT:AfD, 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... LessHeard vanU (talk) 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, User:Pvosta may be able to help. JASpencer (talk) 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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. User:Pvosta was the original poster. JASpencer (talk) 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? MSJapan (talk) 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. JASpencer (talk) 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 Der Der Der, Du-Der der Der-Der to Smoke on the Water? 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? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted/undeleted the two Grand(e) Lodge articles back to a basic redirect. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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 Beavis and Butthead, believe it or not. MSJapan (talk) 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 Tang-tang, Tung-tung, ting-ting, Tung-tung... LessHeard vanU (talk) 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 WP:NONENG, 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. MSJapan (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

One of those bad info articles is Grande Loge Suisse Alpina, 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. MSJapan (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• The nutshell at WP:Notability says;

  This page in a nutshell: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent 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 WP:Redirect 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? LessHeard vanU (talk) 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 at redirect puposes or the reasoning employed on redirecting for non-existent pages (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. MSJapan (talk) 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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.

JASpencer (talk) 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

But that can hardly be a reason for throwing around accusations of "tendentious" redirects. JASpencer (talk) 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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. JASpencer (talk) 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. WP:GNG clarifies the expected minimum to maintain an article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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. MSJapan (talk) 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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:

• John Salza - prod or CSD, AfD
• Grand Orient de Suisse - prod or CSD, AfD
• Grand Orient du Congo - CSD
• Gran Logia Valle de México - 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.

• Gran Logia de la Republica de Venezuela
• Grand Orient of the Netherlands

Should be queried for redirect, deletion, or merge

• Grande Loge Suisse Alpina - 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. JASpencer (talk) 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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? JASpencer (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Masonic ritual and symbolism - 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 Masonic rituals and redirected the articles using it to the singular Masonic ritual (with s tacked on), which will un-nest that mess. MSJapan (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Großorient von Österreich - 14 months with no expansion; 5 lodges in jurisdiction.
  • Action required: PROD/AfD if notability not established in reasonable time. LHvU
    • Again, what about Freemasonry in Austria? This would be especially useful when there was the stop starting of lodges being set up and suppressed? JASpencer (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Darkness Visible (Hannah book) or Walton Hannah - 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. JASpencer (talk) 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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 Roman Catholic priest in Canada. JASpencer (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Gran Logia Mixta de Puerto Rico - 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) JASpencer (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Grand Lodge of the Valley of Mexico - English language redirect of Gran Logia Valle de México, which was CSDed.
  • Action required: None - plain redirect. LHvU
• Grands Orient & Loge Unis du Cameroun - redirects to an article that contains no info related to it; may have been previously CSDed.
  • Action required: None - plain redirect. LHvU
• Grand Lodge of Denmark - 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. JASpencer (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Regular Grand Lodge of Belgium, Grand Lodge of Belgium, Grand Orient of Belgium - 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 User:Pvosta). JASpencer (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
• Women's Grand Lodge Of Belgium - 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 Women and Freemasonry, maybe.
  • Action required: Fix typo, merge content into "Freemasonry in Belgium" article in seperate section since women/Freemasonry is likely notable (clear link to Women and Freemasonry) LHvU
    • See User:MSJapan/Freemasonry in Belgium for new version of article. MSJapan (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Grand Lodge of Kansas - Awful. Can be recreated when information is available.
  • Action required: PROD/AfD, to redirect. LHvU
• Masonic Order of Liberia - 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
    

MSJapan (talk) 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 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.

JASpencer (talk) 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. Risker (talk) 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.156.161 (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Corrections

Regarding your entry in this WR thread:

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

Right, I'm done. Cheers, 212.32.97.202 (talk) 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 you tube. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 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. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Your age? I'm only 38. --212.32.81.27 (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know if you're Frostie Jack - you might be George, for all I know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Onceloose

I think I may have found another User:Eurovisionman sock. I saw that you were involved before. Here's my report: Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Onceloose. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to say thank you very much for your help with User:Mamasaidnakuout and I will keep an eye out for an influx of IP accounts on the articles. Aspects (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)