User talk:BenAveling

Sections with timestamps older than 14 days will be archived to User talk:BenAveling/Archive2 by ~~Werdnabot~~ whoever wanders past...

De Viron Castle is a castle in the town of Dilbeek in Flemish Brabant, Belgium. Commissioned by the de Viron family, which settled in Dilbeek in 1775, the castle was built in 1863 by Jean-Pierre Cluysenaar. The Renaissance Revival castle was built on the ruins of a 14th-century fortification that was destroyed in 1862. One of the medieval towers, the Sint-Alenatoren, can still be seen in the park surrounding the current building and is named after Saint Alena, who lived in Dilbeek. The castle has served as the town hall of Dilbeek and housed the offices of the municipality since 1923, and was listed as a Belgian protected monument in 1990. This photograph shows the facade of De Viron Castle with the surrounding park in the foreground.

Photograph credit: Benoit Brummer

Recently featured:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence

Hi, still trying to pull together diffs. Will add more soon. Regards, LionheartX 11:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, do. Until you add diffs, it's not evidence, just an opinion. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you said here that this ArbCom case is "causing LionheartX some distress". I think thats inaccurate because it didn't cause me any distress. Would you mind deleting that? Thanks, LionheartX 10:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but I'll also explain why I wrote it. Before the case, you were managing to stay away from Gangsta, and he you. Then you posted some evidence, and it was good evidence, and while I was a little worried it might lead to trouble, I decided that you absolutely have the right to present evidence in this case, and that I shouldn't discourage you. And what you posted was very good. But then you and he started attacking each other on a number of different pages. And it seemed to me that a number of the messages were agitated, maybe upset, certainly angry. And I didn't want people to think that was typical of your contributions. When I wrote that you were distressed, I was trying to make that point that this momentary outburst of warring is not typical for you, that usually, you are a quiet, positive, contributor. Probably distress wasn't the best word. Whatever. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that the evidence is being ignored by the Arbitrators. Some more people have put their evidence forward after the ArbCom case moved into voting phase, but it doesn't seem like Arbitrators are reading all the evidence. Also, User:N1u seems like a likely sock of User:Certified.Gangsta. Is there anything we could do so that the evidence are reflected in the Arbitration case before it closes? Regards, LionheartX 13:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the Arbitrators who have commented, to date, looked at the evidence that was there at the time, but they may not have looked at the more recent evidence. They will, before they close it. I thought about adding N1u to the consolidated block log, it is pretty clear that it was a sock of his. I'm trying to balance providing enough evidence with not being gratuitous, in part because I don't want little things to obscure big things, in part because I don't want to be petty about it. But, I agree, it appears to be part of this block log. I'll add it. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the Arbitration case has already closed without all of the evidence being considered, and the Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) is now placed on revert parole. However, I noticed Certified.Gangsta is restarting revert wars after his ArbCom case closed, even though he is now forbidden to revert-war by arbitration case. In fact, he has made no positive contributions and his only contributions after his ArbCom case closed were mass reverts. Certified.Gangsta is gaming the system, even while he is on revert parole. Certified.Gangsta's ArbCom case states "He is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism.", but Certified.Gangsta is labeling content disputes as "vandalism" and his ArbCom case also states "Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.", but he has not discuss any of his content reversions on the page's talk page. Could you help keep an eye over his edits? Certified.Gangsta has now blatantly violated the ArbCom's final decision on several articles. Where would be the appropriate place to report his violation of the Arbitration Committee's Final decision? Regard, LionheartX 07:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben I e-mailed you. If this is what you want then it's great. Wikipedia loves you for this.--Certified.Gangsta 08:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certified.Gangsta has now repeatedly violated the ArbCom's final decision and made personal attacks. Could you help report his ArbCom violation? Regards, LionheartX 08:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's overstepped twice that I've seen. I can turn a blind eye to that. Let's try to talk this through the way we should have done in the first place. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certified.Gangsta has violated his ArbCom restriction on at least four articles. See here, here, here, and here. Certified.Gangsta is labeling content disputes "vandalism" and made no attempt to discuss any of his reverts. In fact, Certified.Gangsta has done nothing but personal attacks and edit since his ArbCom case closed. This is flagrant violation of the ArbCom's Final decision and must be enforced. Regards, LionheartX 08:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely surprised. But there is no "must" in this case, only may. Remember that you too are edit waring. I believe there is a Chinese saying "Go to the law to win a cat and lose a cow"? He should not be edit warring, but before we go and run for help, let us try to talk to him about it. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LionheartX is spamming talkpages. Somebody please stop him from trolling.--Certified.Gangsta 09:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Grant Picture - Copyright

Hi. Thanks for warning me. But could you explain the exact copyright problem. I suppose you mean because Madame Tussaud owns the copyright on the wax figure? --Poeloq 22:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In effect, there are two copyright owners for that image, the person who took it, and Madame Tussaud. To be usable, both would have to give permission. There's a short description at [1] and all you wanted to know at [2]. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case pages

Please do not remove statements from ArbCom case pages. As policy advises, avoid removing personal attack type comments from all pages except your own talk page. Edit waring to remove a comment is never a good idea, doing it on ArbCom pages is a really bad idea. [3] FloNight 16:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for removing the PA for a second time without leaving a fuller explanation. I have now done so on the author's talk page. I am aware that removing perceived attacks is potentially problematic, at least when it is directed at oneself. However, I'm less hesitant to remove a PA on someone else, defend each other and all that. Perhaps if a few more people had stepped in earlier, this whole saga might not have run for as long. If you, or anyone else, feels that the comment had any value whatsoever, please restore it. I will let it stand. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:LionheartX

Can you have a word with User:LionheartX? I'm going to go insane if this harassment campaign doesn't end soon.--Certified.Gangsta 07:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certified.Gangsta is trying to change his username again in an attempt to hide his block history. Please see Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs)'s contributions. This is highly inappropriate because Certified.Gangsta is under formal ArbCom sanctions and the ArbCom case is not over yet. Other user's have also objected to his username change here [4]. Regards, LionheartX 07:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow more spamming by LionheartX. This is not surprising. Anyway Lion's accusation that I am trying to hide my block log is unjustified and groundless especially coming from a major sockpuppeter. He is in no position to make these attacks when he didn't even bother to request a change of username but by creating ban-evading socks.--Certified.Gangsta 08:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certified.Gangsta is demonstrating his bad faith by making ad hominem attacks. The point is that changing Certified.Gangsta's username is highly inappropriate because he is under formal ArbCom sanctions, not to mention that the ArbCom case is not over, which would mess up the title. Note that Certified.Gangsta has also abused sockpuppets and created an attack account. See N1u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an indef blocked attack account admitted by Certified.Gangsta. LionheartX 08:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admitted? When did I admit I got a sock? Get your fact straight.--Certified.Gangsta 08:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certified.Gangsta has admitted that he created the attack account, N1u (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).See [5] [6]. N1u's contributions speak for themselves. [7]. Also note that N1u's userpage says "Sockpuppets of Freestyle.king". See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence for details. LionheartX 08:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certified.Gangsta has made a vindictive community ban request on my account. I feel this is highly inappropriate because Certified.Gangsta is currently facing ArbCom sanctions. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#User:LionheartX. Thanks. LionheartX 09:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lionheart, please leave Certified.Gangsta alone. You've done a good job of avoiding controversy up until now, don't blow it. There are plenty of people looking after this, just let them do the job. If you want to add evidence, or comment on proposals, do so, but please don't engage in long arguments about who did what. It hurts both of you.

Certified.Gangsta, please leave Lionheart alone. This is really a bad thing to do at any point, but especially at this point. People have made some strong comments about you. Even if you can demonstrate that people have acted against you because they dislike you, that alone does not make what has been said irrelevant or false.

I'll leave a full comment at WP:CSN tomorrow. Regarding the name change, I'm going to leave it alone, and I suggest you both leave that alone as well. If the relevant people decide the reason is good enough, so be it. Either way, this squabbling just costs both of you face. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize for causing this controversy and engaging in long arguments with Certified.Gangsta. I'm going to leave Certified.Gangsta alone and avoid further controversy. I'll let other people look after this. If action is needed, I'll come talk to you and let you take it. Regards, LionheartX 13:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a sensible response. There was no single cause for this mess, but no point adding further fuel. Thanks, Ben Aveling 21:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your last edit to the CG-Ideo evidence page

Your last edit to the CG-Ideo case was reverted by me as the case has closed by the time you made your edit. Please ask any questions you may have on my talk page. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]