User talk:Rlevse/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Happy New Year!

Dear Rlevse/Archive 17,
I just wanted to wish you and your family a happy new year, however you're celebrating it. Whether 2009 was a good year for you, or if it wasn't the greatest year, hopefully 2010 will be better. Cheers, and happy editing in 2010.

December21st2012Freak Happy New Year! at ≈ 00:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 13:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Best Wishes for 2010, FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Flo! — Rlevse • Talk • 13:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...and happy new year :) J Milburn (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And for mine, as well - High praise indeed, kicking off the new year. Thank you! Happy New year to you and yours. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion for Juliancolton RfB

A bureaucrat discussion has been opened in order to determine the consensus in this request for adminship. Please come participate. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Constant harassment against me by a small group of editors

Can you please do something about this? There are a small group of editors that keep harassing me by constantly insulting me and then requesting that I be banned. It has gotten well out of hand and I feel that the bureaucrats as a whole need to step and tell them to stop it. Here is an attempt by them to get me banned Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Wiki Greek Basketball. I am 100% confident that there must be some kind of site policy that is against trying to wrongly get people banned and doing it simply out of some sort of hatred or personal issues. I don't know what exactly to do about this other than to report it directly to a general group of people. That is why I am telling you and all the others directly about it. Because reporting it on the noticeboard is not working and does not work. As long as only a small group of people are involved they are able to harass you and get away with it. Please kindly tell these editors to stop harassing me and to not bring any false abuse reports against me again and please tell them to not attempt to wrongly ban me again. I thank you very, very much if you will help me with this. Thank you sincerely for any help as it will be greatly appreciated.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Commented in the sub thread there. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year

Hi, Happy new year, back for a while :)) Taprobanus (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tapro, how you doing! — Rlevse • Talk • 15:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Well my company is still in the process of taking over other failed concerns, I ve now done 6 take overs and in the process of seventh but am able to breath a little bit easy as I now have good help. So took the time to make Munneswaram temple a good article candidate. God only knows how busy it will get starting monday :))Taprobanus (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
So you're a corporate raider? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It takes all of us to make this world go around and round:))Taprobanus (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

I've sent one. Thanks. Acalamari 00:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

TCO my part. Already blocked by LHvU, though I'd have blocked longer. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

York Imperial

Hey- don't know if you got my last message on IRC, but there are some images on page 39 and 41 in this book of irregular shapes for apples by Frank Albert Waugh, and the York Imperial is mentioned specifically as an example. The book was originally published in 1903 in the US, so is public domain. I reckon that's the best possible without securing a release or performing some sort of slight of hand with one of the old magazines and copyright loopholes. J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There's actually an awful lot on Google Books- may be worth looking into if you're aiming at GA or beyond. J Milburn (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sri Lanka Reconciliation WikiProject

Please see an important notice at WT:SLR#Should we close down this project? — Sebastian 08:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Commented. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A question about Molobo/MyMoloboaccount

I was adding an entry at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for MisterWiki and I saw Molobo's entry. I also noticed that it says in the final column To be reviewed by the community after 1 year Currently overdue; original limitation date was June 30 2008.

Was a community review ever performed? I had a quick look, but couldn't find it.

I'm only asking as the entry is inaccurate - if a review was done (and/or an indef was decided upon following 4 upheld blocks), then this needs to be changed.

If a review hasn't been done (and there is no decision of an indef following 4 upheld blocks), then a review needs to be done.

I'm asking you, as you applied the last block to MyMoloboaccount! I don't know any of the circumstances behind this case, I'm just seeing something that appears not to have been actioned, and think it should either be actioned, or the entry updated to reflect the current situation.

As I type this, I can imagine that you are wondering if I'm MyMoloboaccount socking it!

I give you permission here and now to use your checkuser right to confirm that I am not the same account. My IP address will confirm that I am using a computer in Croydon, England. (I've just thought that I have no idea where in the world MyMoloboaccount is... and I'm hoping it's not in Croydon, England!)

For the avoidance of all doubt - should you wish to check that I am not a sockpuppet of Mobolo/MyMoloboaccount, I give you permission to use your checkuser tools to confirm this fact.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

He was unblocked to comment in the arb case and reblocked to the original ending date of that block. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response! So can I alter that final column to read ''To be reviewed by the community after 1 June 2010? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
OK with me. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I have modified it to read:
MyMoloboaccount has a 1 year block for sockpuppetry (see SPI conclusion on 1 Jun 2009 and block notice on 1 Jun 2009) which expires 1 June 2010, after which the restrictions are to be reviewed by the community.
I trust this reads OK, and makes sense! Looking at the block log, it'll be an interesting review, I think! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User semitransgenic

Could you explain to me what is going on with this puppeteer account? You appear to be unblocking him. Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I figured you'd be here quickly ;-) I did. I cannot not go into the details due to privacy reasons. I can tell you if he violates policy again I'll reblock in a heartbeat and not entertain unblock requests. I've put a notice on his page pointing to this thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
There are no personal situations that require socking, none at all, have you discussed this with anyone else? I dispute his unblocking and at the very least he should not be allowed to edit again in the field he was socking in, I have got personal issues too, all sorts of them, multiple. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
He's not allowed to sock. But given the private info I've been provided, I've decided to let him edit under strict conditions. I've been entrusted with several positions and bits onwiki for a reason and when it comes to privacy issues, I will not violate that just to suit you, so you'll just have to trust my judgment on the privacy issue. If you still want to pursue this, feel free to file a request to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Nothing allows any user to sock, does it? Private issues or not. I am not requesting any private details, I care less about them. I dispute your unblocking and request it to be reviewed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
What are these strict conditions you have agreed to allow him to edit under? Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Editing from one account is not socking. Often in WP:SPI cases the socks are indef'd and the master only blocked 1-2 weeks, and Semi was blocked longer than that. He could have abandoned Semi and used WP:CLEANSTART and you'd have no idea what his new account is; but as is you can watch him. Would you prefer he use clean start? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
To be honest I would yes. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Then I suggest you post such a request on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You ask him, your the one that unblocked him, the last thing I want to do is talk to him. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Will do. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm Back

To tell you the truth, the "block" had little effect on me. This week made me think about my actions and I will continue to do things my way and that I will come back with a vengance. I could care less what you or anybody else thinks. Damiens.rf 20:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.57.215 (talk)

Thanks for proving you have no intent to work within policies nor in a consensus environment. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Hello Rlevse, I noticed that you once "blocked" the above mentioned user. Seems that he/she is true to his/her word [1]. Some people never learn. Antonio Martin (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I was just coming to ask you who I needed to talk to request that Damiens be blocked from editing for a week but after reading his comments here it appears it will make little difference so I am not quite sure what actions should be taken know against an editor who seems to be so intent. --Kumioko (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised to be defending Damiens.rf here, because I think his interactions with other users is deplorable. However, Antonio you've twice reverted edits of his that actually seem correct to me. In what way are self published pages hosted on tripod.com or angelfire reliable sources? More importantly, how in the world did Damiens.rf's tagging rise to the level of vandalism that required you to use administrative rollback? AniMate 04:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, one quick note. The inclusion of MOH citations is valid and they are all available on official very reliable sources. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Rlevse. You have new messages at Damiens.rf's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


... by the way, I'm not the anonymous IP that stated this "I'm Back" thread above. I hope you're not so gullible. --Damiens.rf 12:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I know. I'm not as think as you dumb I am. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Rlevse, this response of yours is disappointing. Your initial response at the beginning of this thread clearly indicated you took the posting to be authentic, and based on this apparent belief it contained a strongly worded accusation clearly aimed at Damiens himself (and not the anon vandal). It was hardly inappropriate for Damiens to add his clarification here, and rather than a snide remark as a reposte, a small apology to him would have been the appropriate reaction. And if you really had been aware of the fact before, then at that time the appropriate response would have been to at least strike out the offending posts add/or add an acknowledgment of your mistake. Instead you left them standing, on a doubtless heavily watched and frequently read talkpage such as yours, where it was bound to mislead other users. Not cool. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
FP, your response is disconcerting too. But since you again jump to conclusions with asking me about it, I'm not going to bother to explain it. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think I "jumped" to anything here. I can't see how it is "disconcerting" to remind a fellow Wikipedian that if they publicly make a harsh and very visible accusation against somebody which then turns out to be false, it might be a good idea to retract it in the same venue. Don't you think that's pretty standard procedure? Sorry to keep harping on you, but what I'm seeing here is a pattern, and not only from you. I see one admin calling Damiens.rf a "maggot", and nobody protests. I see another admin repeatedly abuse rollback against him, and continuing to do so even after somebody objects. I see a third admin make three patently false accusations against him in one breath, including the false charge of "vandalism" and the thinly veiled attack of "racism", and not a word of wlllingness to retract these charges. Then I see you making the accusation above and refusing to visibly retract it. I am seriously beginning to ask myself who is "hounding" whom here. We here in Europe often use the term "mobbing" to refer to this kind of collective social response. I've seen cases of wiki-"mobbing" before, and it's been among the ugliest kinds of things I've seen in this project. I don't want to see that again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Duped by puppets?

Is there a reason that the comment in the above thread is left on your user talk page with a reply from you even after it's been indicated that it is not from Damiens? Are you purposely misrepresenting it to be his? If you do think it is him why not run a check user? And if it's not him then isn't it grossly improper for an Arbcom to leave it up there with a nasty statement assuming bad faith "Thanks for proving you have no intent to work within policies nor in a consensus environment"?

I find your involvement in the dispute with Damiens to be shocking conduct from and Arb. You and Jehochman bust in there guns blazing making all kinds of accusations leveling an indefinite block without following any of the dispute resolution protocols expected from mere peon editors. Did you ever stop for a moment to consider collegial discussion? This site is so full of hypocrites it's sometimes hard to stomach. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Such comments are precisely why you are at a user conduct RFC. Your verbal abuse and lack of AGF are appalling. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I think Rlevse and Jehochman did a very decent thing. They tried to at least stem the deletion carpet bombing against individuals that the blocked user initiated. As one of Damiens' victims, overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the software-assisted mass deletion assault initiated by Damiens.rf, I can honestly say that Rlevse and Jehochman have finally stood up and given notice that robotic-aided assaults on individual editors cannot continue. The tragic loss of the Marine is a testament to the ruthless efficiency of using software as a weapon to stun, overpower and overwhelm human editors. I find such practices to be, frankly, indecent. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
That's not quite right on the facts Dr. K. The noms had already stopped and there was a discussion started by Damiens at the Village Pump. I happen to agree on the basic principles, and I would have supported a discussion about the issue to find a more collegial way of resolving problem content areas and image uploads. But that doesn't excuse admins unilaterally enforcing their opinions because they happen to be the ones with the power to do so. Jehochman and Rlevse made a series of assumptions of bad fiath and accusations that are borderline personal attacks. We must all be held to account. There is no excuse for refusing to engage in collegial discussion and it's not okay to issue blocks instead of following the dispute resolution process. That's what was done in this case and it's not acceptable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Not borderline at all, the accusation of racism is worded in a very weasely way but is nevertheless a very serious allegation that has still not been properly evidenced and both jehochman and Rlevse have been very active in teh discussion at AN throwing accusations and attacks at any user who challenges the block. Rlevse accusing Fut Perf of a COI is a particularly egregious example. Spartaz Humbug! 05:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I never accused anyone of being racist in this matter. And FP comes to the aid of everyone who agrees with his image views, so I stand by that. Contrary to some stmts here, my main concerns here were Damiens' appalling treatment of other users and lack of willingness to work in a consensus environment, issues you yourself wrote in your unblock stmt. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I respect your opinion ChildofMidnight but I think that although in this case there may have been other issues involved, I really don't know the minutiae of the case, the fact remains that the primary objective should be that Twinkle should not be used as a rapid-fire machine gun to obliterate the morale of editors here. In addition I understand there are also other behavioural/civility issues involved. I think that what Rlevse and Jehochman tried to do was to send a message that such behaviour cannot continue. I think that in this case, if there was any error, it was on the side of caution and minimising disruption. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Precisely. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed Dr. K. And the way to get that addressed is with a courteous note to the editor involved and by using the appropriate discussion boards. I think Damiens would have been willing to hold off (and could have been compelled to hold off) without any blocks which are themselves extraordinarily demoralizing and confrontational. Cheers. Thanks for the respectful discussion. I appreciate it. Spartaz and I agree on something... could be trouble brewing! Take care all. I'm going to let the matter drop (even though it's been used to bash me at an RfC). I just hope better judgment and consideration is used in the future so that all editors are treated collegially and with respect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't even read your RFC, just know it exists. Think about why. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you ChildofMidnight for your kind comments. I agree, especially with your final remarks. Let's hope something good comes out of all this. Take care and see you around. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 06:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, a point of agreement. Yes, hopefully Damiens will learn to work collegially with others and that being correct (here, let's use the example of a valid tag on an image) is not an excuse to be maltreat others nor ignore other policies. There are also legit concerns about how to use automated software that were raised. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Let me also take this opportunity to personally thank you for your efforts. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility

Hello! A user whom you previously blocked for disruptive editing and who has been blocked for various reasons, including edit warring, deletion review trolling, personal attacks, harassment, etc., and has therefore already received multiple warnings along the way and the subject of such threads as this, has reacted to a rather heated exchange by telling another to "fuck off." The user talk page dispute seems an extension and escalation of the discussion at this. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of this is old and provides history. Are there additional recent problematic edits besides the "fuck off" one? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Responding to your warning with "go away" isn't very nice either. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

NPA

The editor Fladrif (who has been blocked previously for the similar behavior) is continuing to be uncivil and derogatory today, despite a warning from Will Beback on the article talk page [2] and the editors User Page yesterday. [3] Is some further action appropriate at this time? Thank you.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a baseless claim which fails to distinguish between pointed and legitimate criticism of improper edits with a personal attack.Fladrif (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
And another one today. [4] "Clearly, the universities you attended did not include Harvard Law School.Mister Hart, here is a dime. Take it, call your mother, and tell her there is serious doubt about you ever becoming a lawyer.Fladrif (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I need time to sort through this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
While you're sorting, consider that this post responds to a claim that no university the editor ever attended would call my criticisms of a statistical study and the researcher's defense of it "criticism". I was merely pointing out, with a quote from The Paper Chase, that the tone of my comments were entirely consistent with criticism at certain academic instutitions, in that case the fictional Professor Kingsfield, channelling the real Professor Warren at Harvard Law School. It pains me to think that it is actually necessary to point out that cultural reference, but apparently it is utterly lost on some editors who instead misconstrued it as a personal attack. Fladrif (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, please take your time. I know you are busy. Meanwhile, here is another sample post from today.[5]-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
As Will pointed out [6], criticising a statistical study and the researcher's defense of its fatal flaws as incompetent, and questioning the researcher's credentials, is not a personal attack. Fladrif (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Keithbob, it's not clear to me which parts of those postings are personal attacks against you or other specific editors. Making accusations about attacks from other editors would have more weight if you made them with clean hands. However you've just accused me of POV tag teaming,[7] so I'm not sure you're the best person to be complaining about negative personal remarks. I suggest that we all try to keep calm and focus on content problems rather than trading accusations about each other.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Initial observations...Kbob, I agree with Will that he was not tag team POV editing. Fladrif, I do agree with Kbob you need to tone it down. It's easy to see that the "Mr. Hart" post directed at Kbob, not source validity, so it was a personal attack. I suggest both of take a breath and come back editing in a productive collegial manner. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
It was in response to olive, not KBob, and I respectfully disagree. I was simply pointing out that academic criticism can be quite harsh with a real life, well fictionalized from real life, quote. It wasn't an attack on anyone. That being said, I'll do my best to play nicer.Fladrif (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, but we are not in the academic world, such as Harvard Law, where competition among students and profs is brutal in order to get to the top, we're an collaborative consensus based encyclopedia and things that inhibit that harm the encyclopedia. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Rlevse, did you get my e-mail? Cheers, John Smith's (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes there's a lot to it to wade through and I go on int'l travel in a few days. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, if you don't think you can deal with it please let me know someone that you think will be able to help. Cheers, John Smith's (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't get to it today, work and mtgs, but may Thu or Fri. If that's not fast enough, you may want to contact someone else. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I didn't take a copy of it so would appreciate it if you could forward it back to me. If I don't hear back from you on Friday I'll ask someone else. Thanks! John Smith's (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Happy Kyle Barbour's Day!

Thanks! But... why? I don't even really work on Wikipedia anymore. I mean, it took me over a week to even notice that this happened. Kyle Barbour 04:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You deserve it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks — I mean, that doesn't really answer my question, but I do appreciate it. Kyle Barbour 09:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for York Imperial

Updated DYK query On January 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article York Imperial, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I am really honoured. Thank you for the beautiful gesture. It is a great pleasure knowing you. Take care R. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Not sure what (if anything) I did to deserve my own day, but thanks for the nod. Appreciation is...appreciated! :-) Best wishes.  Frank  |  talk  16:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Rlevse, that was a really nice gesture. I'm not entirely sure what got me noticed by you, considering the majority of the stuff I do is a bit hidden behind-the-scenes; I just genuinely care about the quality of Wikipedia. But it's nice every once in a while to know that it's appreciated. Thanks again. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Citing

I want to cite a chapter within a book edited by an editor X, but the chapter is written by Y. How do I cite without looking like I am citing from X's work when I am using Y's chapter within the book. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd use the book author and use the chapter author as a coauthor field. Or put the chapter author in a note at the end. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Check this out Coast Veddas, I had to pick from more than one chapter, each written by a different guy from a book edited by one person. Is my ref style correct under notes ? Taprobanus (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Go to your prefs tab, gadgets tab, turn on "reftools". This adds a "cite" button to your toolbar when in article edit mode. When in edit mode, click "cite" then "web", "book" or whatever, and fill in the boxes. then "add" to move it to the article (have your cursor in the right spot in the article. This makes this ref stuff MUCH easier. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Me?

why would you give that award to me? Especially on the day that I was blocked?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 18:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know you were blocked. The award stands regardless. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I was considering giving back the award because I didn't think that I deserved it.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, everyone hits bumps along their wiki road; just learn from the experience. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
You have'nt seem to. I have only now just found out where I can best help this project, World War I German U-boats. Thanks for the award anyway. It's an honnor to recieve it and I hope that I have not tarnished the reputation of you program.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 05:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mao protection

Hi Rlevse, I'm not sure why you thought it necessary to protect Mao: The Unknown Story ([8])? I protected it for 3 days back in mid-January, and since that protection expired (January 13, I think) there has been no edit warring, and no substantive edits (just one bot edit and one external links edit). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Did you care to respond, or were you just planning on ignoring it? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if he intended to semi or full protect it (currently semi), but I think with the IP user implying he was going to start making edits without gaining consensus first I think it's no bad thing. At least this will force him to gain consensus. John Smith's (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There is behavior and CU evidence. That's all that needs to be said here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Behavior and CU evidence for what? That the IP is a formerly blocked editor? If that is the case, then (well, first of all, you could have taken the time to inform us that that was why you were doing page protection—I would have expected better communication skills of such a senior editor), if that is the case, it can be dealt with by blocking the IP. But as far as I can tell, for the past 10 days all the editors involved in that article have done a commendable job of not edit warring. I issued several EW warnings around January 10, and since then everyone has kept to the talk page, there's been absolutely no disruption whatsoever. I simply see no reason there was such an urgent need to protect the page, and you still have not lifted a finger to provide a reason. Indeed, your action summary just said "edit warring", which is patently wrong.
Unless there is a reasonable objection, I am tempted to remove the unnecessary page protection. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Badgering me and making ultimatums is unbecoming of an editor such as yourself and gets you nowhere. Bye. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
If you call asking for further explanation of your actions and trying to explain why I think they're unnecessary "badgering", that's your problem. But since you have declined to offer any reasonable explanation (i.e., conformant with the protection policy) for page protection, I have removed the protection. If you want it back you are welcome to put a request at WP:RFPP or ask for a third opinion. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You weren't asking, if you can't see the difference, that's your problem, not mine. Now kindly leave me alone. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for the recognition. It brought a smile to face, and it means a lot coming from such an experienced and talented editor. I appreciate it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Who Knows?

Hi, Rlevse, with your experience.. any ideas what to do with that article? leave it, AFD it, I don't like it much (I know that is not a reason) it just seems more of a speculative slur on a good mans character, not about gay but about the whole combination of boys and sexual speculation that basically has nothing even close to supporting facts? Off2riorob (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You could AFD it but I doubt it's succeed. I think it was AFD'd before with no consensus. If an AFD was successful, those in favor of the article would stuff more of this topic into his main bio. I think the reason an AFD would not be successful is that well respected authors have written on the subject, though it is indeed sheer speculation with no solid proof. IMHO the best course is let the article stand and keep it in line with policy as much as possible. Before it was split off a lot of this was put in the article but it was split because it was taking up like a third of the article, ie, UNDUE weight was given to it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Right, thanks for commenting, i'll watch it and try to keep it clean. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

One of those days...

I watch your talkpage, must be a full moon or something-I'm getting sniped at too. Keep your chin up, many love and respect you. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Must be huh? Hehe. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
This has been way fun. Umm, not so much. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kimchi&action=history I know I should stop, so I am, but this one's had a hard one for me for years. I miss our Philly boy. ;) --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying Caspian and you don't get along? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
No, no, we're really tight. Like the deathgrip of his kimchi stained fingers 'round my neck. LOL --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
You really need to watch such remarks. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
In reference to the article, nothing more. One of my favorite foods, which is why I watch the thing. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what

I am disappointed at your new position on this. Sitting on the fence serves no good purpose. Haiduc (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I see both sides of the argument and I genuinely and not sure of the best course. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Image rename

Now renamed to File:Hashomer Hatzair pre-2008.jpg, you need to put it in a file with a proper FUR asap. Cheers. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, fixed it. I didn't know what it looked like before I asked you to restore. Looking at them both, they're not that markedly different, are they? Maybe we don't need both. Your thoughts? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't matter to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

adminbars

I assume this is what you were trying to create. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but {{Adminstats/Rlevse}} doesn't match the numbers in User:Rjanag/adminbars/Rlevse. What's causing the difference?? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Yea mine are different too /boggle. –xenotalk 20:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The numbers in the bar version are actually sums of several (I tried to group related activities together, so, for example, the "deletions" bar sums deletions and undeletions, the "blocks" bar contains blocks and unblocks, yada yada for "protections" and the rest). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Damn, was just coming here to comment that I figured it out ;p Cool template. –xenotalk 20:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look at it, I think there are still some issues. Rlevse's 'protections' number in the bar is much lower than what it should be, and your 'blocks' number is much lower. Not sure yet what's causing that. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
One other thing, when you have a low number you cant read the total, I can't read two of my numbers. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's just an issue in how the {{bar percent}} template works--when the bar is really small there's no place to put the number. Perhaps there's a way to make it float off to the right of the bar instead of being inside of it. But I think that would have to be fixed in the bar percent template itself. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
My block # should be 1129, I think it appears truncated to "112" because as you said the bar isn't big enough. It was that rash of adminbotting I did for deletions that's screwing up meine beautiful chart... –xenotalk 21:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec, think I figured this out at the same time as Xeno) Figured it out; see the "block/reblock" line of User:Rjanag/adminbars/Xeno_test. The numbers aren't wrong, they're just being truncated when the bars are short. Which means it's the same underlying problem as the one Rlevse mentioned just above, and the solution is to modify the {{bar box}} and {{bar percent}} family of templates. (I imagine it will have something to do with the line <td colspan="2" style="padding-left:0.4em;padding-right:0.4em" align="right">{{{4|{{{3|0}}}%}}}</td> in {bar percent}.) I'll have to figure out who knows a lot about that template and have a chat with them to see if it's possible. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tried putting the numbers outside the bars. How does it look now? (On your page it will probably look stretched out; it looks a good deal better when it's transcluded somewhere and shrunk down to a suitable size, like the one at User:Rjanag#My work on Wikipedia.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I like this! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Damiens.rf

Unfortunate to still see things like this from this user. I don't think he's learned anything since his last block. Should anyone have to put up with insults when arguing that an image of JD Salinger could dare to fall under fair use? I mean really. Auntie E. (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Hungary Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions) and New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Isle of Man Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Help you probably didn't even know you gave

So, last week I was briefly in Bangkok on a long overland trip through Southeast Asia. Entirely thanks to your user page, I knew to say "Sawadee krap" to people, and it always seemed well-received, even though I probably was butchering it. So, thanks for letting me know how to say hello in Thai! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hehe. Glad I unknowingly helped out. I've found in my travels that foreigners tend to not like it if you expect them to speak your language and really appreciate it if you try to speak even a few words of their language. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, that's my observation, as well. In Vietnam, the locals reacted well to my use of "cam on", "thank you". In China, people are very glad when I can speak whole sentences in their language, even. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow...I didn't know I deserve it...

Surprised to know that today is the happy me day...thanks!Jim101 (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Scouting articles by quality log

Hi Randy, have you any idea why this shows Blackwell, Worcestershire oscillating from Stub to Start, Start to Stub, endlessly? --Bduke (Discussion) 03:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that and I have no idea why. Ask User:Oleg_Alexandrov, he codes most of that stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

my day

Rlevse, thank you so much. That was really thoughtful of you. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for honoring me with a Me Day the other day. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the award, thats pretty cool. I guess your right about the talk page Ill archive some of those. --Kumioko (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Headline of Rlevse

I am very happy for you. I know Wikipedia loves you, and I know you love Wikipedia. You are very kind to every known Wikipedian, including me. Hope you've been a beloved Wikipedian perhaps in the next few days! Love, [[User:Powerseu|Powerseu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping

I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Nicobar Long-tailed Macaque

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk: Nicobar Long-tailed Macaque/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

eh — Rlevse • Talk • 16:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *YES! 10:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Rlevse, thank you so much for making my day! That was really thoughtful of you. --Ctatkinson (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, you deserve it! — Rlevse • Talk • 02:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ireland naming

I'm not sure what you mean by "try ARBMAC2": there was already an Arbcom-directed process that was gone through. The request for clarification sought to get official Arbcom verification that the process had completed validly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the troubles with The Troubles, Ireland naming, etc have been solved. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Me Day

Thank you for giving me a day. I am not sure what I did to deserve it, but it is always nice to get recognition. Rlendog (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI#WP:OFFER unblock request of MyMoloboaccount

Hi - as the blocking admin, you might be interested. Regards,  Sandstein  22:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for giving me my own day, I'm truly flattered. Packerfansam (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I forgot to tell you that I am back on Wikipedia now, however, I will be much less active here. -- IRP ☎ 19:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 19:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter

Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Hungary Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions) and New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Connecticut Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Republic of Ireland Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you so much, Rlevse, for offering me my special day, it was very kind of you! --Myrabella (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (Confederate States Army)/archive1

You can still claim points for this, FWIW. Articles worked on/nom'd in an early round can count for the next round if necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

how? I got booted in round 1. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I misunderstood then. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Now if the FL hadn't dragged their feet in promoting it, I'd have made it to round two. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your "Awesome Wikipedian" day

Q When admin enters your Hall of Fame, does it mean he can never be up for 'review'? This barnstar looks like something bigger than your user page - I think this goes way beyond your average barnstar, and I think you need to address that. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
My program is strictly informal. An admin can always be reviewed if there is evidence to justify it. As to how "big" this is, that's what some people may make of it, I've certainly not said anything like that. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I maykst of it this: in a website of dodgy barnstars, this is the worst I've seen. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
What's dodgy about saying you think someone's an awesome Wikipedian? That's all this says, neither more nor less. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
It looks too 'official', and goes beyond what barnstars should do. It might seem to be 'in the spirit of Wikipedia', but I find it to be quite the opposite. It is just way OTT. The various support networks on Wikipedia are impenetrable enough already. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The whole idea was started by Phaedriel about 3 years ago. She hasn't edited in about 2.5 years. AFAIK, you're the only one who has a major objection to it. Everyone else is neutral or very pleased with this. Let's face, there is way too much negativity on wiki and patt on the back for good productive users isn't going to harm anything. BTW, I never called it a barnstar, you did. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I wonder sometimes if Wikipedia isn't slowly going completely insane. You presumably have taken it upon yourself to award a personalised "Day" to Wikipedians you admire, but you are saying it wasn't even your original award? Or can anyone pick a 'day' and award one to someone? Certainly it is cannot be right to just assume that others think the way you do ("everyone else is neurtral or very pleased with this" indeed!).
I found your timing for your award to TenOfAllTrades suspect - he has been under heavy criticism for a while regarding his behaviour in a major policy proposal, on 'Community de-Adminship' no-less. What a time to take sides and offer him his "Day"!
Are there any admin watching this page here with the balls to weigh in here, or is this the kind of lifetime flattery you all secretly desire? After all - you lot have a "job for life", why not have an "award for life" too? Adminship is not in good shape right now - I suggest that you really don't want to be awarding each other these kind of bonuses. It looks a little - how can I put it? Wrong - that's a good word. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Your lack of AGF and your seeing plots everywhere are appalling. I'm invoking WP:IGNORE here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
OK - I am getting more and more critical in my criticisms I admit. Basically, I've been complaining when I see things related to admin I don't like, and I have to say that I'm finding that there is a way of disallowing it. The admin response is generally to infer that I am a 'troll' for complaining too much: I get 'mud' thrown at me (never detail), I am called "appalling" (or some close variant), and then the ones with no answer tend to invoke the right to stop doing their job (ie "don't come back" - or a little more politely, invoke WP:IGNORE). I've actually had "deleting without reading" after an admin just could not explain his action. Admin should deal with editors with the same reliance on evidence that they must insist upon in article building.
If someone is obviously a troll, isn't it better to ignore without comment, rather than 'feed and ignore'? If someone isn't obviously a troll, what are admin doing suggesting that they are? For a while now (when observing others) I have noticed that 'layering mud' is the instinctive way admin turn the screw on editors they see as awkward, and it is even invisible to many of them, because they only have to look at the last few admin responses and blindly trust them. I see it played out too much now, and there is no understanding or redress.
At the moment admin are everywhere saying how 'perfectly fine' the admin system is. For the sake of progress that needs counterbalancing – so I've taken it upon myself to be one of those who do that. People have been allowing too much pass by on Wikipedia. As the years roll over the admin system we have had is starting to crack all over the place. Wikipedia is supposed to be 'young', improving and organic – but I see little taste for seeing it like that amongst far too many admin. You can say you find me paranoid – if you believe it that's fine. I'm not though. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:42 am, Today (UTC+0)

Less awesome to some

I was so amused to see that you approved of this mesage:

"Viridae admonished for blocking another administrator without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the administrator to obtain such knowledge, Viridae is admonished for the poor judgment exercised in this incident."

One could replace it with this:

"RLevse admonished for orchestrating the oversight of an edit without full knowledge of the situation at hand, and without attempting to contact the editor who made the edit to obtain such knowledge, RLevse is admonished for the poor judgment exercised in this incident."

Oh, what it is to have friends. I would love to know how you square your conscience. You see, in real life judges always have to be guided by precedent, and their own behaviour above reproach.  Giano  17:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Oversight on WT:FPC

Rlevse, as you presumably know, that is in violation of oversight policy as stated in WP:OVERSIGHT. Furthermore, a short section from the totality of all my conversations with her, for purposes of commentary, is covered under fair use.

You've had issues over the policy before, when you oversighted instead of merely deleting it when I posted it here. I was told the policy would be changed to retroactively allow that action, but it hasn't been changed in five months, which indicates a lack of consensus for that change, and are now using it even further outside of the oversight policy to suppress, not the actual words, but a link to a fair-use discussion of the event. If I'm ever going to return, it's important that the harassment is known, so that I have basic protection from my harasser. As such, I have referred this to arbcom-audit-en.

-Shoemaker's Holiday talk 08:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think [9] is even worse: In a thread where I'm having I claimed the harassment couldn't have been that bad, because it was Durova, you delete the evidence, claiming that defending myself is exacerbating the situation. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 08:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It is exacerbating the situation to attempt to prove points that people are complaining about the lack of evidence for, thus making it impossible for me to defend myself? PUT THEM BACK. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 11:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No it's not, check with Cary Bass like I did if you like. There is established precedent for suppressing links publishing personal conversations/emails, etc, such as the EEML case. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've e-msiled Cary, have gotten no reply. If you are in touch with him, tell him t contact me Shoemaker's Holiday talk 15:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Academy lists

I really enjoy working the lists very much, I think you've done very well with them. If you ever need any help or anything, let me know. Packerfansam (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Packerfansam (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do that. Thanks for the compliment. Packerfansam (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem. Packerfansam (talk) 07:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Re 'my' day

Wow, where did that come from? Your generosity and kind words are greatly appreciated - Thank you very much :) EyeSerenetalk 12:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good work deserves a pat on the back. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Durova

Your oversighting is discussed in this case. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 21:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback, and something else

Hi Rlevse,
I've left you a reply on my talk page, not sure if you're watching.
And for something completely different, is there still any activity on the Arbcom list concerning the block of User:Tothwolf? I had sent my 2¢ to the list for consideration a week ago, but there hasn't been any result on what appears to me a rather trivial matter. If Arbcom is dropping it, I'd go ahead and take a deeper look myself; as far as I'm aware the current status is that Arbcom is looking into it "and will respond soon", but that's been one week ago.
Cheers, Amalthea 12:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hey. Can you preform a CU on User:79.71.205.100. His latest contribs show that he's a sock.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

IP already blocked, IP range is highly dynamic. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Well that's not good. I know that it's SciencegolfFanatic or someone else that has had issues with me in the past. Anyway thanks for replying.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
IP deserving being blocked (done by someone else already not me). Master can't be blocked without more evidence, can't be "somebody". — Rlevse • Talk • 04:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I have a feeling that it's Fred the Oyseter but I'm done with it now. Thanks for the help :)--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt

I am presently opposing this candidate because of his sock offenses. If you can clear him I would be willing to change my vote. If you affirm the Sock offenses, I will rest easier. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about current socking or long ago socking? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response. My concern is in regard to the following sock allegations. Oppose 18 "abusive sockpuppetry", Oppose 28 "sockpuppetry = not admin material", and Oppose 43 "abusive sockpuppetry" Thanks for the help. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I can not find a link to the sock case. They seem to be referring to an old case, not ongoing socking. I do recall being the CU in a case involving him but the memory is not 100% ;-). It also appears he used have a different account prior to mid Jan 2008 and that case seems to have been ongoing just prior to that. If so, do you know the name of the old account? If I recall correctly, I gave him a clean start out of the sock case but I'd really like to find the old sock before I make any definitive statements about this issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
And this is my problem with the aforementioned allegations. They sound serious but hard to verify. - Thanks anyway - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I've asked MQS, on his talkpage, to comment here. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The past sock cases are listed in WP:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt#General comments. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment There is no sock case. The sockpuppetry allegations and accompanying generated fears can only be due to the L.L.King sockpuppet incident of two years ago, as I do not and will not engage in such. The dredging up of ancient history is being used out of context as a tactic by opposers to smear my current status as a constructive contributor, and to cast me in a negative light.
RetProf... there is no sock-puppetry,only empty claims to paint me in a bad light.
Rlevse, you have my permission to answer any questions about that history and share whatever cogent diffs that might apply. And please...
If a current checkuser can help in clearing my name against these nasty and disruptive assertions, I implore it be done... as I do not use alternate accounts and have nothing to hide. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It now appears to me that this is the case. Thus, there is not much to be done but move on. You should probably withdraw before it gets too nasty. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It is already too nasty, as RFA has become the one place where WP:CIV applies only to the candidates. Thank you though very much for speaking up. Your true and honest consideration is appreciated. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
If there was "abusive sockpuppetry", Michael's main account under his name would have had a block for it. Most of what we see there are hypocritical character assasination by accounts some might call "extreme deletionists" against someone who doesn't even have an inclusionist userbox and whom I have indeed seen argue to delete. Have some accounts become so fanatical that they will even denigrate a moderate? I think some just see a bunch of opposes and regardless of their lack of merit the numbers influences them rather than the reality. What a travesty! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/L.L.King_(2nd) was the case I was trying to find. And this in my talk page archives: User_talk:Rlevse/Archive_11#MQS is also very germane. I'll think on this and comment on the RFA later today. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'd linked them both from the RFA page so no-one would have to try to remember where they were. :) As I recall Rlevse, you would have also had an email from MQS at the time explaining the circumstances of who did what, which he now also publicly states (L.L.King was not him, but was someone working for him who got sock-y without his knowledge). At the time, you were still suspicious but we agreed to leave it as a "fresh start" and you asked me at least to keep an eye on the account - which I did, closely, and still do for that matter. From everything I've seen, there's been not a hint of bad behaviour. He couldn't be using socks to support his position in AFD's because no-one ever supports his positions! ;) Franamax (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Wow, I'm not sure what I did to deserve my own day, but thank you very much for it, and thank you for the kind words of your message. Peace, SpitfireTally-ho! 09:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Email disabled on User:Arbcom

I thought I'd let you know that email is disabled on the User:Arbcom role account. Is there a reason for this? –MuZemike 15:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll look into it. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Happy day

A belated thanks, and hope you have a nice day too. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My hidden page

The Last Change Barnstar
You're the first to find that page! Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oops!

Sorry, I thought that as long as the meaning wasn't changed. It was bothering me but won't happen again.

By the way, I don't know if you can help. I notice you auto archive your talkpage. I have added that to mine and followed the instructions but I don't get the list of archived pages that you do.

I.E. This detail:


Archives

15 Nov 2005 – 28 Feb 2006 • 01 Mar 2006 – 30 Jun 2006 01 Jul 2006 – 30 Sep 2006 • 01 Oct 2006 – 31 Dec 2006 01 Jan 2007 – 31 Mar 2007 • 01 Apr 2007 – 30 Jun 2007 01 Jul 2007 – 30 Sep 2007 • 01 Oct 2007 – 31 Dec 2007 01 Jan 2008 – 31 Mar 2008 • 01 Apr 2008 – 30 Jun 2008 01 Jul 2008 – 30 Sep 2008 • 01 Oct 2008 – 31 Dec 2008 01 Jan 2009 – 31 Mar 2009 • 01 Apr 2009 – 30 Jun 2009 01 Jul 2009 – 30 Sep 2009 • 01 Oct 2009 – 31 Dec 2009 01 Jan 2010 – 31 Mar 2010 •


Could you give any advice as to what I am doing wrong? Tucker talk 03:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't auto archive, I manually archive my talk page. For auto archive, User:Elonka should be able to help. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Tucker talk 17:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Noted Tucker talk 16:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for renaming! Rosewood (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks x 2

For this and this! Sorry to also bother you with "business" but, following up with the SUL thing, I don't seem to be able to unify accounts from my en.wiki one as it just asks for the password to the wikiquote one (which I don't own so can't and don't want to unify with it). En.wiki now has more edits but this still lists the quote one as the home wiki. Any suggestions? Thanks again for all your help, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

hmm. I'll ask around. Maybe it just needs time to process through the system (that there is a new home wiki). — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: List status

Thanks for the compliments, I enjoyed working on it. Again, if you decide you should need any help on your other lists let me know, or if you think you've got it covered, that's fine. Packerfansam (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no promblem. Packerfansam (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy days

Thank you very much! Unexpected, but much appreciated. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

24.144.32.0/19

Hi Rlevse, that range is relatively populated with anonymous contributions, dont know if you have the "/16, /24, /32 CIDR contribsrange Gadget" activated, for /16 it shows tons of contributions. The range block might be a bit too hard just to prevent one dumbass from editing. I just ask because one contributor was lost at commons:Special:Contributions/24.144.50.124. I dont know of all backgrounds, only what I saw from the block log, but maybe you can remove the block or tighten it to a smaller range. --Martin H. (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't justify, based on CU ev, shortening the /19, but I did shorten it to just one more week. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Usurp request

I didn't understand it. The usurp request is already done. Johnmartins (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CHUU#Johnnymartins_.E2.86.92_Johnmartins see that. Do you control the Johnmartins account on pt wiki and/or en wiki? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and there is no need to warn you; when I usurped I saw a big formulary asking it. Johnmartins (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want this usurp done? If so, on en wiki the name "Johnmartins" will become "Johnnymartins". Is that what you want? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No, what I wanted I already got it. Johnmartins (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Bullshit: the art of making the idiotic sound sensible

DO you know how to get a consensus? Make sure the people who disagree with you never make it to the argument Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's why it's called arbitration, you couldn't solve the problem yourselves. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Obviously we did. Wales asked for a review. Desysop anyone lately? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Naturally ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Since you seem to at least have a sense of humor about things.....We'll have to start the The Legally Prohibited From Commenting On Common-Sense Tour Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please change indefinite to "until after Brews' topic ban expires"

That for the detailed reasons given by me here. It boils down to the fact that when Brews is back editing physics articles, there will undoubtedly be interactions between Brews, me and Likebox which will very likely not resemble anything similar to "advocacy". Count Iblis (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't--- I am very glad to finally have a good reason not to waste my time writing articles for this place.69.86.195.240 (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Usurpation ありがとう

Thanks for getting my username usurpation sorted out. It threw me for a loop today though, when I logged in as KAR as usual and found no watchlist, no contributions and no gadgets! Took about 10 minutes to realise I'd probably finally been moved. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much. Dlohcierekim 00:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

BEdita

Hello, i don't know how to do this, but i'd like to propose the deletion of this article, BEdita. Because it's spam. That article has been written by an user named "Xho": he's the same author of the software there described. You can find his name also as the founder of the project on sf (BEdita by b4t0, srosanelli, xho). Within a week, that article has been already deleted on it.wiki after an ordinary deletion procedure (take a look here). The software itself isn't free for real, because there is a commercial license and only a piece of the software is covered by the AGPL. If you can, could you open a deletion poll? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.21.243 (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I put a speedy tag for spam tag on it. I see your point. If this doesn't work WP:AFD is next step. Consider getting an account and getting more involved. Be glad to have your help. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse, thank you! even though it didn't worked. Also on it.wiki the speedy deletion failed, but then nobody opposed at the normal procedure. AFD is too long to read, and i didn't read it; but you could open a normal deletion process for me because atm i'm just too lazy... That page is a promotional article of a non-notable and commercial software. Link my post above if it's needed to explain the reasons for the article deletion. I believe that when that article will be nominated for deletion (using the normal procedure), it'll be deleted in no time... Hah, seems like the authors of that software are snooping around in attempt to find ways to save their article ;) —Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.141.79 (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're too lazy to afd it yourself, then it must not be that important. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's absolutely true, in the end it has no importance to me. I thought it to be important for en.wiki, but that's none of my business. So long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.194.139.232 (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


Thanks!

I needed that today. It means a lot. Makes me miss Phaedriel, though... <3 Kafziel Complaint Department 01:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

We all miss her, and ArielGold. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all you do!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your Exceptional work on Wikipedia! Lord Oliver I Heard It Through The Olive Branch 19:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, thanks. Much appreciated! — Rlevse • Talk • 19:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Phishing for Admins...

I got an interesting e-mail yesterday that looks like a phishing/scewing attempt. Just wondering who to point at it.

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much all admins got one. Arbcom was sent many copies of it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

User contribution question...

This is from looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Marcus_Brute&action=history

  1. Under what process would Darknus823 have been moved to Marcus Brute?
  2. Would it be normal for Darknus823 to then show as an unassigned username?
  3. Lastly, would Darknus823's contributions, if any, show up as Marcus Brute's?

Thanks

- J Greb (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Charles T. McDowell

Sure Ill take a look at it. --Kumioko (talk)

Harry S. Truman featured article review

I have nominated Harry S. Truman for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter

We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Pennsylvania Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rlevse/Archive_17&oldid=1091535425"