User talk:Rlevse

; 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 – ...;

——————————————— MY TALK PAGE ———————————————


Home	Talk	About me	Awards	Articles	eMail	Contributions	Images	Notebook	Sandbox	Todo	Toolbox

My Admin Policy: I trust that my fellow admins' actions are done for the good of Wikipedia. So if any of my admin actions are overturned I will not consider such an action to be a "Wheel War", but rather an attempt to improve Wikipedia. If I disagree with your action, I will try to discuss it with you or with the admin community, but I absolve you in advance of any presumption of acting improperly. We should all extend the same benefit of the doubt to our fellow admins, until they repeatedly prove that they are unworthy of such a presumption. For every editor, I try to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and expect the same in return.

Featured topic

Just a warning, but a WP:FT needs to be "focused" and "complete". You can't simply pick the best articles on the subject and call it a topic. You might do "early Scouting history" and have Gilwell Park, Badel-Powell House and Robert Baden-Powell, a GA and whatever else is relevant. Or you might focus on the merit badges, Eagle Scout, Wood Badge, History of Merit Badges, etc., including them *all*. Gimmetrow 03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has
closed successfully and you are now an administrator!

Useful Links:
• Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide •
• Administrator's Noticeboard • Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents • Administrator's Noticeboard for 3RR •
Your admin logs:
• blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads •

If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay (Talk) 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Rlevse. May I wish you many more FAs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the fold! Looking forward to the first time you'll be accused of abusing your privileges! :)) Rama's arrow 02:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey ... I see you've already got the mop on your userpage! Good job! --BigDT 02:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. Viridae ^Talk 03:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your promotion to Admin! — ERcheck (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rats! I'm sorry I did not see your RfA. I would definitely have been in Support. Congratulations. Johntex\^talk 05:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I did not see your RfA. I would definitely have been in Support. Congratulations. --evrik ^(talk) 15:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Darth griz⁹⁸ 03:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats... if I had seen it I would have supported 100%Balloonman 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on my Rfa!

Rather than spamming the dozens of supporters of my Rfa, I'm heartily saying thank you here to all of you and look forward to working with you all.Rlevse 03:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article merging

Camp Oljato and Camp Casa Mare have been out there too long. We should cut bait or fish. My preference, of course is that we keep them and note them on the WikiProject page for expansion. --evrik ^(talk) 15:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, wiki policy is to wait two weeks for merge talk results. The consensus on both is to merge though, so if someone doesn't do it soon, I will.Rlevse 22:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

FYI, someone like Telewarper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has only vandalism edits can simply be indefinitely blocked (after the appropriate warning(s) have been left, of course). {{subst:test7}} can be left on their talk page. There's no reason to block for a shorter period of time if it's a throwaway account. --BigDT 03:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AIV reply

He was creating attack pages that must have gotten speedied before you saw them...sorry. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, seems he's a sock too.Rlevse 03:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obi-Wan Kenobi

I never got a reply to my concern on WP:GA/R on how to inline reference material that is taken from a film. If an article such as Obi-Wan Kenobi has a section called "The Phantom Menace" why do you consider it necessary to use an inline reference for that section, when clearly all material of this section stems from the film? In what way would these references look like? Can you give examples of how featured articles that use films or books as primary sources make use of inline references? / Fred-Chess 23:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA which passed unanimously - thus proving that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time. I'm still coming to terms with the new functionality I have, but so far nothing bad has happened. As always, if there's anything you need to let me know, just drop me a line on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing AfDs

Remember to add {{subst:at}} above the header and not below. The mathbot miscounts otherwise. Cheers. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geogaphy Cup

You said on the FAC for the Geography Cup article that you would not support 600 words for FA. At last count, due to additions based on comments, it is now 1400 words according to the search page. If you would consider changing your vote, please do so on the FAC page. If not, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See FAC page.Rlevse 22:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked spammer

Hi Rlevse, I noticed you were the admin who blocked User talk:71.75.18.180. I think the same person has been editing as User talk:69.53.185.56 because the exact same links were added to the exact same articles. I gave that last IP a final warning a couple of weeks ago, and I was wondering if the circumstances warranted a report to AIV. Let me know what you think. Cheers. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 23:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great job noticing this similarity! The problem with AIV right now is that your warning is about 3 hours after 69.53.185.56's last edit. I'd suggest staying on it and warning him as again as soon as he does it again and then when he violates the warning, put on AIV. Since this are both anons, an indefinite block is unlikely, but maybe you'll discourage him and you may notice the same behavior from any account he may create. Also, document all of his bad behavior as later an ANI notice or something may be warranted. Hope this helps.Rlevse 00:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll do that. Thanks for the advice. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 19:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Edit conflicted - was going to restore then I hit another edit conflict. :( My bad. x42bn6 Talk 00:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck your comment back, by the way. x42bn6 Talk 00:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks.Rlevse 00:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon wrestling

FYI, I protected this article so it can't be recreated and Pelican was indefinitely blocked by another admin. Rlevse 01:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. Some people just don't get the message... ~Matticus ^T_C 01:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Need for Speed XI

Hi Rlevse, I think you made an incorrect judgement in closing this AfD. This article is about an unnannounced video game with not a single reliable source (even though the authors have used speculative fansites as refs nicely). A comparable precedent is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarCraft II. I realise that a number of people voted to keep the article, but as the closing admin you should not count the number of votes, but look at the merit of the different arguments. My personal opinion is that the article should be redirected to Need for Speed for now and it can be restored if the game is actually announced. I ask you to reconsider your closing: if you stick with your original judgement that is fine, I'll probably take this to deletion review though, since I feel this is an important precedent. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-03-3 19:34

I can see your point, and yes merit can at times outweigh voting, but I think that both sides have merit and the raw vote was defnitely not a definite in either direction and within the closing admin's call. I guess we'll have to simple disagree in a kind matter. Thanks for the input. Also is there an official wiki policy on future games? There is nothing banning articles on future events in general, there is event a tag for future event articles. So, I'm not convinced there's a firm policy on this, just varying opinions perhaps. The Starcraft article case may not be the best one to use to support your side as it was an obvious delete, whereas the vote in this case was almost evenly split.Rlevse 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say that both sides have merit. Can you specify what merit there is to the "keep" votes? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see on what ground Wikipedia can have an article on a video game that does not even exist according to the people who are supposed to be developing it.. Thanks for your response on the WP:COI page, btw. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-3 21:58

I think it has merit in the same way that people write articles on an upcoming election or Scouting event. For example, we have articles on the 100th anniversary of Scouting here in 2007 and no one is saying the articles shouldn't exist, so why shouldn't an article on a game in progess exist? To me it's the same logic. If you file for deletion review, I won't object or interfere.Rlevse 22:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about scouting, but regarding elections we at least we know that they will eventually happen. For a game that has not been announced, who knows if this game will ever be made? The developer hasn't admitted that it will. I'm almost certain that you wouldn't write a Wikipedia article about a scouting event unless that event had been officially announced. The release of a video game is some kind of anniversary that can be planned in advance. I find it rather ironic that I, as a die-hard inclusionist, have to be the one arguing for the deletion of an article. But seriously, there is not one single reliable source that says that the subject of this article even exists. Remember that Wikipedia articles have to be verifiable.. This article can in no way be verified... JACOPLANE • 2007-03-3 22:34

WP:CRYSTAL does not require "official" announcement, only verification and there are refs in the article that discuss it. The article has a future game tag on it, giving ample notice the game isn't actually out yet and the first line says it's "expected". It's obvious the game is in development and the article clearly states such. Now if it had no refs at all, I'd agree with you. I simply and honestly don't see that any wiki policy is being violated here. My suggestion is list it for deletion review or relist it for afd to get more input. I am curious as to one thing...why do you thing Starcraft came up so clearly a delete while this one didn't?Rlevse 00:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We would like your opinions at the talk page too, if you may. --MrStalker 09:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Scouting Tireless Contributor Barnstar

Many thanks for this award. Maybe you should have waited until the mediation is settled -:) I'll trey to ensure it is settled successfully. --Bduke 02:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'll do fine.Rlevse 02:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on Amir Massoud Tofangsazan

Thanks for closing my AfD nomination of Amir Massoud Tofangsazan. I am considering putting the retention of this article up on a deletion review—not to question your conclusion that there was no consensus to delete, which was reasonably clear, but to allow a broader discussion of some of the broader issues involved, outside the wiki-notorious context of a Brian Peppers or Daniel Brandt. I'm going to think about this before deciding whether to go ahead, but in the interim, wanted to give you a head's up, and also the opportunity to further explain your close if you cared to. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vote was close, clearly within an admin's call. One thing, but not the only thing, that swayed me was that there were two other afd's on this that were ALSO no consensus; there is clearly a wide range of views on this. If you want to put it up to review, it won't bother me at all, but I suspect that 3 afd's that were all no consensus will make it a hard sell, but by all means list it for review if you like. Rlevse 03:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)...actually one was a speedy keep, the net result is the same.Rlevse 03:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two earlier ones were pretty much contemporaneous with this person's 15 minutes of fame, and also took place before we adopted the current version of the BLP policy, so I don't see them as particularly relevant. I'll give this some more thought. My concern is not this particular article, but our overall approach to articles whose encyclopedic value is outweighed by potential damage to real people's lives; see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad for the broader context. If I decide to put this up for review I'll let you know. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, the policy here is important, it maybe should be reviewed. If an article is a clear policy vio, it can be speedied, like an attack page.Rlevse 03:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Socks

It was not me who reported those users, it was Tellyaddict, all I did was add a few notes onto AIV. I will create a sock report then, but really, as listed on tellyaddict's talk page. It was a shared Ip which was "Supposedly" behind the dispute of one particular page which was continually being deleted and re-created. I think it's sorted now. Retiono Virginian 15:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page was speedily deleted. 3 times, hence why they have no contributions. Retiono Virginian 15:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article, which several edit wars have undergone, constant recreation, and just blatant trolling by three accounts and one Ip address. Fran Timbers. Retiono Virginian 16:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the bottom of Tellyaddicts talk page, Longa already requested the article to be protected from re-creation, and stopped the trouble, of being a shared school ip. Best not to block. Retiono Virginian 16:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know what you should do, but you being the admin, and the more experienced user, you do what you feel is nessercy. Retiono Virginian 16:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for your help with this matter Rlevse its really helped, I hope you like your new admin tools!Tellyaddict 16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Account creation blocked

I notice that most of your {{usernameblock}}s are with account creation blocked, generally it's best if good faith users are encouraged to create new user names that don't violate WP:U, rather than blocking them from doing so. I realize it's set as the default option under the blocking tab, so a lot of new sysops make this mistake, and I'm sure it was in good faith--VectorPotential^Talk 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and I'll keep it in mind, but the ones that are also vandals and/or had sexually offensive or racist usernames I don't consider good faith editors.Rlevse 16:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ip you blocked

You cannot block an anon Ip forever due to just one death threat, it's just not right, shorten it to a month or so, you're only allowed to indef block an Ip if its an open proxy. Retiono Virginian 16:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened it to 48 hours, due to the unclear nature of whether the IP is shared. --Nlu (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip guys, death is pretty serious though. I'll report as on the blocking policy it says to report threats. Rlevse 16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny the Boring Vandal

Hi there! Per your block on Mike Rimbaud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - obvious sockpuppets of Johnny the Boring Vandal should be indef blocked on sight. Thanks! 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I didn't know he was a sock of known major vandal.Rlevse 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:EvilAlex

This one hasn't learned a thing from his previous revert-warring blocks: EvilAlex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As soon as his most recent block expired (48 hrs set by you [1]) he jumped right in and repeated the exact same revert warring that he got blocked for two days ago.[2]

In the span of an hour, he made six whole or partial reverts. The page was restored to its original version by two different editors, three times in a row, but it is getting tiresome. This is clearly disruptive behavior, so please take action here.

From WP:3RR:

"The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any edit warring, even if they do not exceed four reverts on a page in 24 hours."

Everyone is willing to engage with the user constructively on the Talk:Transnistria, but I don't see anyone who will accept his constant revert warring anymore. - Mauco 22:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done, 1 week for cases like this.Rlevse 22:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In the span of an hour, he made six whole or partial reverts." - no he didnt. That is a lie! EvilAlex didnt brake 3rr rule. there was only two reverts. + he added POV tag, + he removed disputed content while discussion is still ongoing on the talk page. +he removed broken template. hardly breach of 3rr rule. Transnistrian article doesnt follow NPOV guidelines. Mauco is well known POV pushe in Transnistrian related articles, he wants to have a veto right and by blocking EvilAlex you give him this right. EvilAlex is the only known native Transnistrian in wikipedia. He have been in Wikipedia since 2001 and had only 2 blocks for 24 hours. Hardly a vandal or spammer how Mauco wants to present him. 172.201.152.248 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is an AOL UK dial-up, dynamically assigned. EvilAlex lives there. While I appreciate his right to reply, he ought to at least identify himself and not speak of himself in third person. I will not comment on the unjustified ad hominen attacks, but I will point out that User:EvilAlex performed 3 full reverts within the time span of one hour: [3] [4] [5] . In addition, he also performed 3 other edits (which I and the rest of Wikipedia qualify as partial reverts). - Mauco 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EvilAlex is in an edit war with at least 3 other users and is being disruptive. Work it out on the article talk page in a civil manner first, then edit the article.Rlevse 00:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of his changes were discussed in his Talk:Transnistria prior to introducing them. 3 full reverts in less than an hour? Enough said... - Mauco 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what EvilAlex is tried to do. Currently there is an ongoing discussion on a talk page. Isnt it the best practice to keep the disputed content out from the main article while discussion is on the way? EvilAlex is not the one who started it[6] User:Alaexis firs introduced controversial changes to the article without any notification or discussion. The changes have been reverted by User:Dc76 [7], User:Dpotop [8] also in archive 11 there was an agreement on intro[9]. And guess what? Mauco is one of the person who agreed on intro. First of all lets restore the original content, second discuss any changes on the talk page and only then edit the main article. You have blocked the wrong person :( EvilAlex is not a vandal he is a victim. The only thing that he is guilty is: holding on to the agreement and restoring undesscused changes in such a controversial article as Transnistria. Unblock him. Also have a look at changes that he is proposing: [10] everything is backed and supported by reliable references. The only users that oppose it are newbies:
19:44, 27 September 2006 Alaexis (Talk | contribs) New user account[11],
18:42, 26 January 2007 Buffadren (Talk | contribs) New user account [12]
172.207.198.34 01:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This IP as another dynamically assigned AOL UK IP from the home location of User:EvilAlex. I would urge any admin to judge this user, as well as any other editor, on the basis of their actions and not on how they portray themselves (or attempt to portray others). The one week block was more than justified, but let us see what happens now: Let his future actions speak for themselves. - Mauco 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it quite interesting that all the flak on the page has gone away since today's block of EvilAlex and that you are using an IP vice a username. However, I will unblock EvilAlex and protect the page for 48 hours for a cool down and see how it goes.Rlevse 01:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Established editors of Transnistria are quite familiar with User:EvilAlex and we can easily predict how it will go. A look at his edit log will confirm that although he has been a Wikipedia editor for quite a while, almost none of his mainspace edits have survived objective scrutiny and the fact-checking of others for more than 24 hours. This is not just the case on Transnistria but on a number of other pages as well. I am not wrong when I state that 99%+ of his mainspace edits are subject to quick reverts by others. His increasingly antagonistic behavior has over time become quite disruptive to the work of others within the encyclopedia. - Mauco 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest true is that Mauco wants to rewrite entire history of Transnistria. He is pushing and promoting his ideology on ordinary wikipedian readers. And every one who thinks differently is a vandal. Mauco had long history of trolling and disruptive behavior. EvilAlex 14:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His edits are more in the area of edit war and uncivil behavior, not vandalism, you may need to report this WP:ANI if it continues. If he does go awry again, report immediately. I may not be online at the time.Rlevse 02:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. We'll just see what happens. Several longtime Transnistria users (including some which share his own POV and nationality) have expressed at different times that we hope he will learn from his blocks, and learn to work with others. Some of that commentary is still on his user talk page, although he often deletes comments there which he doesn't like. Mauco 03:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mauco please stop trolling around. EvilAlex 13:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone involved in that article needs to be WP:CIVIL, cooperate, and work things out on the talk page first. Rlevse 15:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

Per our discussion above, I have put the article in question up for a deletion review here. Although I had considered speedying it, I believe that action would have been controversial and just brought us to DRV anyway, particularly in light of a host of recent events. I am also interested in seeking the comments of the community on this type of article outside the recent instances of wiki-notorious individuals. Your comments on the review will be appreciated. Newyorkbrad 22:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I will state my reasons and leave it at that.Rlevse 22:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Beaver?

I thought you might be the person to ask about why there is no article about the Silver Beaver or Silver Antelope? If it is just the fact that no one has taken the time to go through and find a history and sources then I would be more than willing to start the articles and spend some time working on them but if it is because they were previously deleted or something else then I won't bother.--Joebengo 03:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because no one has bothered to write them yet.Rlevse 03:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work starting with the Silver Beaver and then do the Silver Antelope later.--Joebengo 03:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you've done them, okay?Rlevse 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I started off a Silver Beaver article, take a look and make the appropriate changes because I know its not perfect.--Joebengo 03:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a good start. Fix the refs like I did the first one. More detail and inline refs would help. Do you have a goal of attaining a certain quality rating? Rlevse 10:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well its hard to find a lot of information on it but if it could get up to B-class I think it would be a great addition to the Scouting wikiproject.--Joebengo 02:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-class for such a topic would be great.!Rlevse 02:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Chalet - Reword

Would you check something when you have a moment? There's a sentence you wrote in the Peacetime reopening section of Our Chalet about the USA Friendly Fund. It needs rewording to make clearer sense. Thank you. Kingbird 18:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Chalet - American English?

Hi. It's me again already I'm afraid! I'd like to check with you about the type of English being used for Our Chalet. I had thought that the article was written in American English, but there are certain words and spellings included that I didn't think were used in America, like neighbourhood and autumn. I just wanted to check before I wade in and change these that American English is what we're using for this article. Kingbird 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Chalet itself uses British English, so change it to Brit-speak, okay? Both Autumn and Fall are used in America, though Fall is more common, so it doesn't matter. This article should use neighbourhood, colour, etc. Thanks. Rlevse 21:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User warning templates

Hey ... one thing I noticed tonight ... when you add a user warning template like {{unb}} or {{test4}} to a user's page, it's important to subst: the template. That way, if the user replies to your message and six months from now, because of our incessant need to change things, test4 says something completely different, the actual message that the user received and replied to will show up on his page. --BigDT 05:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I forget sometimes. THanks.Rlevse 10:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply

Thanks for replying about my question on Obi-Wan Kenobi. Embarrisingly enough, I didn't notice your message until today, it got lost above another post... but it made me very glad that you replied. I'll look it over, and will direct further questions to you.

I realize that you are a busy person and might have missed other comments I made on the GA/R, so I'll ask it here, in case you'd want to reply.

[13], there is a question at the bottom that I am curious of.
Cullacabardee, Western Australia -- did you notice that this community has a population of 95, when you demanded that the article should also mention education and government [14]?

If you are indeed interested in replying to my questions on the GA/R, wouldn't it be better to keep that page on your watchlist? I had gotten the impression that you are being somewhat snobby.

Fred-Chess 08:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WINGS2009

I actually know the guy in RL, and yes he is the web admin and content author for a lot Berkshire website stuff... still, I think that the information that was there before (and will be put in again) will be just an advert for the event, not really encyclopaedic. I've put the encyclopaedic information in Scouting in Royal Berkshire Horus Kol Talk 09:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle

You might want to take a look at Twinkle I have been using this script for several weeks now and find it to be very useful. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny bit of advice

Hi,

When you close a complex AfD, like Amir Massoud Tofangsazan, a sentence or three elaborating your reasoning will go a long way in giving your decision credibility at DRV and with participants. When you just sign an AfD, it leaves people guessing regarding your rationale, and makes contention more likely. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point.Rlevse 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Campbell's Soup Cans FAC2

You were fairly vocal in FAC1 and have not chimed in on FAC2. Your comments and hopefully support are welcome. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the article of the Baron Baden-Powell

I saw you removed my pictures of the monument and the monument's plaque. Well, yeah, I might have runied the layout (I didn't see that each picture was strategically included into an especific section) but that doesn't mean you also have to remove the pictures I added, which were quite cool.

I have re-added them in the Awards section. I hope you don't touch them. And be more carefully at time to remove other people's work: I didn't see the layout with which the pictures were organized but that does not mean you have to completely revert my contribution, and remove my work. Onofre Bouvila 18:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting Featured Topic

I noticed that the Scouting Featured Topic has been put forward - I opposed this because I don't agree that it is a developed topic yet, and I said as much in the discussion about the FT when it was put to the project... I think we should take a step back, and look at what is needed to achieve a Featured Topic, and if that means developing some articles, then that actually helps improve the project in the long run... Horus Kol Talk 13:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree. The most developed topic is the BSA area, but go for whatever you like.Rlevse 14:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some suggestions for topics at User:Horus Kol/Possible Scouting Featured Topics - feel free to make changes. Horus Kol Talk 23:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm

It may not have been your intention, but you removed a large quantity of information from Our Chalet. You know the drill, I assume. Logical2u_{Review me!} 21:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see my response on your talk page. If you notice, I wrote most of the article.Rlevse 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did indeed notice that you were doing most of the last edits (I figured either A: you were messing around, testing other people's reactions, or B: testing stuff) Good luck (Hope it's not simply an unclosed ref tag) Logical2u_{Review me!} 21:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity

I don't want to second-guess you, but is there a reason why you deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alberto Nisi after closing it? It seems as though the AfD was deleted but the article wasn't, so I've re-instated the former and deleted the latter, which I imagine is what you were trying to do in the first place. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I deleted the afd vice the article, yes it was a mere goof, sorry and thanks for catching it.Rlevse 10:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Tun

Why did you revert the edits on the above article? neither Ye Htoon nor Min Ko Naing are scouts and therefore "see also" sections does not apply to them. Please stick your edits to Wikipedia policy. Okkar 20:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also section applies to all aspects of the article, not just one and the fact that the portal tag is there, which is where it's supposed to be, does not matter.Rlevse 21:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, it stated that "Related topics should be grouped by subject area for ease of navigation. Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent" - therefore the appropiate relevances should be explained. In this case, no explanations were made nor provided, instead the article tries to mislead Min Ko Naing and Ye Htoon as scouts. This seems to me is a deliberate attempt to draw attention of particular user base (in this case - scouting fans) to politically motivated causes which has no relevance whatsoever with Wikipedia. Therefore, unless proper explanations are added according to Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, the "See Also" section of this article should be removed. Okkar 22:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is interesting to note what you said above "I will abstain from participating in any contested article or wiki issue in an administrative aspect, not just Scouting ones, in which I am personally involved.", however, your involvement with Tin Tun article appears to betray your statement above. While I am not accusing nothing improper on your part, I cant help but noticing the coincident according to Chris's comments on talk pages and then your sudden involvement out of no where. I would appericiate a brief explanation from you regarding that. Okkar 22:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not invoked or used any admin tools or privileges on this issue, nor will I. Therefore, on this case I'm just a regular user and will remain so.. Chris and I agreeing is no different from you and another like-minded editor agreeing. There are many cases on wiki of portal tags being in see also with unrelated links. See also is generally only split into sections when several links are involved, not just 2 or 3.Rlevse 00:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, why was my edits were reverted using Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also as the reason? This to me is using Wikipedia's guide to confuse other editors. Okkar 09:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping by

Hi there. So how is being an admin? Nice to see that you are still active in GA review and Scouting while learning the ropes. — ERcheck (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response on your page.Rlevse 09:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on the Noticeboard questions...

Hello,

On behalf of all of us, thank you for getting involved. I am wondering, am I blocked from editing as well, or can we go and actually edit the article to what the user kept removing? I am unsure of the policy in this situation and do not want to cause an issue.

Regards, Snickerdo 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't blocked, so you can keep editing.Rlevse 09:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the user page revert. How's life and your admin mop been working out for you? — Rebelguys2 ^talk 05:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been okay, very interesting and learn a lot about inner wiki workings. Mostly afd, 3RR, AIV, and attack and nonsense speedy deletes.Rlevse 09:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Talk:Lethbridge Collegiate Institute

Replied to your GA review. PhoenixTwo 20:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donorman block

I think the 48 hour block is a bit lite. This is my opinion, but every time he was warned it only fueled him to attack those that warned him. Look at his contribs, he went ballistic blanking pages and adding information in swarms of like 300K in size. It's my opinion that in 48 hours he's going to return to continue this "fight" of his. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion. I almost went a week. If you see him do it again and I'm online, let me know directly and I'll go either 1 week or 1 month. The reason I didn't do it this time is he hasn't been blocked before. Many vandals stop after once, they then know we will block them.Rlevse 14:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be sure to let you know if something happens. I appreciate the response and respect your decision. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing barnstar

Did you ask Djmckee1 if he was ambirch1? I'll talk to Djmckee1 about it. Please let us have the conversation before taking any action on removing the scouting Barnstar. I will let you know about the results. If he is it is nothing major I mean neither have done anything harmful, maybe the know each other in real life anyways, Thank you for your concern. Bloddyfriday 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]