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.

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]

Reply regarding 3RR on 11:11 (numerology)

Thanks for asking the question regarding my 3RR report about that article. I posted a reply on the nomination. TheRingess (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo (antelope)

Hi there, the above article is on fac status again. I've really tried to change all the things you commented on. Please can you hgelp with the inline citations as I'm new to this and I can't seem to get that correct? Please can you look it over again? Thanks so much for your help. Black Stripe 01:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my 3RR blockage on Democracy

I am not sure if you care, but what is going on in the entry Democracy is that a single user - the same one that has "reported" me - has self-designated himself the de-facto owner of the entry. For months he (or she) has been reverting every attempt by others to edit the entry. While that user sometimes makes a show of discussing things with others he does not make any good faith attempt to achieve compromise and eventually, by simply keeping at it, reverts the entry to his favorite content.

I would suggest that the approriate action here is to block that user for an extended period from making edits to Democracy, and giving others a chance to make some changes. --Drono 03:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If such is the case, then you take the case to mediation or ANI, with a full report of the details.Rlevse 09:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the other editor involved in this case, I have no personal agenda here and I have no particular intention of taking any more steps on this issue. I don't see why I have to waste my time writing up an argument for something that any objective observer can find out for himself (or herself) by spending 15 minutes looking at the history of the entry.

Your administration policy is wrongheaded if it mandates that you block me based on some formal rule instead of simply examining the facts and taking the action that results in better content for Wikipedia. Up to you. --Drono 02:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe

Re: IDontThinkYou'reCapableOfBlockingThisName, I guess he was wrong. —dgies^t_c 18:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Chalet

Hi Rlvese, just to let you know I did read the article... it's borderline as to whether or not it is a GA... it could probably be passed, but I do have some concerns that prevent me from passing it straight up... unfortunately, I am super busy right now and didn't have time to make notes for revisions... which is why I didn't post this on the articles talk page. I'll try to take a closer look at it this weekend and make some concrete comments.Balloonman 07:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removing barnstar part 2

I have done an Investigation the best I could, I Kept coming up with way to many simularities like the fact both names end with 1, also all history on both talk pages has them very seldom saying what the edit on their pages were and they both have a family of scouts. I just wanted to defend him that was all... however the evidence is stacked against him being the same person. Just remove the barnstar, I can't do it, it feels wrong to me. Anyways, he didn't do anything wrong, now if that account starts vandalizing stuff we can quiz both of them. If it comes to that I'll explain my plan on that. I highly doubt it would come to that. Bloddyfriday 16:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: 3RR on David Barton

Your response to this was:

page protection, both seem to reverting the other.Rlevse 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I have only reverted Bwallace07 twice (starting only after Bwallace07's second reversion of my changes), do not have a long history of reverts on this page (by contrast Bwallace07 has: 14:24, 13 March 2007, 15:44, 26 February 2007, 16:26, 12 February 2007, 02:46, 12 February 2007, 11 February 2007), have been attempting to make meaningful changes rather than only reflexively reverting, and have been attempting to discuss my proposed changes (and concerns about unsourced material) on the article's Talk page.

Yet your decision, although probably well-meaning, has had the sole effect of rewarding Bwallace07 by protecting from further changes the version of the page that Bwallace07 was reverting in order to protect.

This strikes me as somewhat counter-productive. Hrafn42 03:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a 24 hour block. And yes, all my admin actions are well-meaning.Rlevse 09:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What this has taught me is that reporting 3RR violation is basically pointless, and that I would have been better off to have continued reverting instead, as (a) I could have made another revert without having violated 3RR, and (b) even if I had exceeded 3RR thereafter, I would still have been the revert-warrior with fewer reverts & so have gotten off with a lesser punishment, and have stood a better chance of having my version being the one frozen in place by a protection if the Admins eventually intervened. Is this the message Admins wish to be sending?

As things stand, I see no point whatsoever in attempting to make further contributions to David Barton, as Bwallace07 clearly has the intention of reverting anything new, leading to a choice between (a) letting their reverts stand (in which case the contributions are wasted), or (b) getting into another revert war with Bwallace07. Their willingness to revert all new content (even in violation of 3RR) gives them de facto ownership of David Barton and a veto over any new content, a veto they have repeatedly employed. Hrafn42 13:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me crystalise my first point above: Was Bwallace07 better off for having violated 3RR? Unambiguously yes (he got exactly what he wanted). Would I have been better off for having violated 3RR myself? An only slightly ambiguous yes. Is this a problem for those who think that getting people to obey 3RR is a good idea? Unambiguously yes. But hey, that's your problem not mine -- I can just vote with my feet. :) Hrafn42 14:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the long-time editors, and on David Barton I would like to point out that BWallace07 as well as many of the other pro-Barton editors appear to be one-purpose editors if not outright sockpuppets of Barton himself. I would like Rlevse to consider the history of this article. Many independent editors have tried to remove the POV language only to be reverted by BWallace07 and his single-purpose editors. How do we resolve this? Wjhonson 16:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socks need to be reported via WP:SOCK. If he continues revert wars when this expires, let me know personally and I will block only him. Mediation and WP:ANI are options too.Rlevse 17:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BWallace07 is back to his old tricks, reverting well-sourced material, and even deleting an old and uncontroversial contribution on Barton's teaching career, without any discussion.[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hrafn42 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Warning placed on BWallace07's Talk page. Is it permissible to revert BWallace07's deletions? Or would this be considered further escalation of the Edit War? Hrafn42 16:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feeder (band)

Hi!,

I just realised that you review the articles for GA status, regarding music topics, and am wondering what you think of the article concerned. I hope to bring it up to GA status and go from there :-).

If there are any problems, could you if possible please list them?.

Cheers!

Marcus Bowen 19:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've answered the issues on the talk page, then I think all you need for a successful GA run is to fix the Discography section. Why is it only a main link. It at least needs a summary or combined into another section. Actually, though, I'm not a music specialist.Rlevse 20:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:OurChalet.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:OurChalet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. IvoShandor 07:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)IvoShandor 07:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

World Chief Guide, I don't know what it is, and suspect anyone outside of the world of scouting wouldn't either, thus it is jargon, it should be explained. As for the image, it isn't a matter of finding it, it's a matter of going there and taking one, the image could easily be created by someone who went there, that may not be you or I. Good luck with the article. IvoShandor 10:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am not joking, though I don't think you seriously think I am. As long as this building exists a free use replacement is easily creatable. Maybe not in by you, wherever you might be. Just watch. This image will very likely get deleted. Nothing against your article or anything. I learned this lesson in the exact same way. IvoShandor 10:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This: Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia. is the relevant part of WP:FU, note it does not say images that can reasonably be replaced by User:Rlevse. IvoShandor 10:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it wouldn't be unreasonable for a Wikipedian in Switzerland or visiting Switzerland, it's not an uncommonly visited place by any means. As for the current interpretation of fair use, that is up for debate, personally I am all for free as in libre, not free as in beer, just my personal opinion. I do wish you luck with the article as I found it an interesting topic and will continue to monitor its progress, as I tend to when I do GA reviews (I like knowing that maybe I had a part in making an article better). : ) IvoShandor 11:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I can get my scanner working (that could be a while though... :( ), I'll see about getting you some pictures of Our Chalet. I must have some lying around here somewhere, considering the number of scenery, etc. pictures I took when I stayed there. -Bbik 04:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, that is great to hear, as images are always better than no images. I figured someone might have one laying around. : ) IvoShandor 04:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our Chalet/World Centers

The thing is, they really shouldn't be mentioned in the intro. It should mention that it's one of four, but that's about it -- the article itself doesn't discuss the other four at all, they don't deserve a (long) sentence and then some in the intro. However, I'll let the See also list be, until I (or you or someone else) fixes the intro. I stand by the quick explanation for Gilwell Park, though. The name doesn't make it immediately obvious what the link is (aside from a park of some description, which on its own is only loosely related anyhow), and even the page itself isn't very good about that, which is exactly why I removed it -- it looked to me to be just some generic Scout campground. I'd see if I could clarify that one a bit too, but considering the argument that apparently has already happened at least once regarding whether it should be "Boy Scout" or "Scouting", further confused by (apparently) the lack of gender differentiation in England, I refuse to touch it.

Also, I've added a lot of questions to Our Chalet, which could really help explain and organize some parts.
-Bbik 22:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the good edits, but I don't agree about the other centers moving out of the lead. I'll get to the questions soon.Rlevse 22:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference to me whether you answer here or on my page, but can you stick to one? It'll get incredibly confusing very fast if responses (beyond a (non-vital) basic "Response on my page" type comment) are split between the two.

Beyond that, could let me know when you're done answering the questions? Overlapping edits are no fun, and easily avoided.

-Bbik 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I need to get to work now, I'll see what I more I can do later. (Also, I responded to the Awards bit on my page... Wasn't thinking when I did it.) -Bbik 19:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just reworked the intro a little. How's that sound to you? It still mentions the other centers, but without taking up nearly as much space, since they're not at all the focus of the article. I don't know whether the page is GA quality now or not, probably not, but it's certainly a lot closer than it was. I'm not sure I can do any more for it at this point, but if I come across something or figure out a way to fix the remaining comments, I'll help where I can. -Bbik 03:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vital articles and Release Version

Hi, I debated about the articles in Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Eurocentreism. How can we add the results in the Release Version.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking me this? I haven't worked that area. What exactly are you looking for?Rlevse 17:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC source

The BBC source which you have removed from the article was not a part of the conflict. It was removed by Dahn by mistake. See my talkpage for confirmation. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything by Dahn that says it was a mistake. The protection is for 24hours, it can be worked out then.Rlevse 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He said the source was okay, but even if he didn't, could you please use some common sense? BBC is usually reliable, is it not? --Thus Spake Anittas 20:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am, you are in the middle of a bitter edit war and I'm forcing a time out hoping to get cooler heads to prevail, everyone needs to calm down. And your "could you please use some common sense" comment isn't going to score you any points. You have a long block history, hopefully you've learned something. If you prefer, I can unprotect the page and then block both of you from all editing.Rlevse 21:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long would the block last? --Thus Spake Anittas 21:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu -- 1 week, Annittas -- one month due to multiple prior blocks and long history of this sort of editing. Take your pick, but note the page is only protected for 24 hours and it such edit wars reoccur you could get blocked indef again. Rlevse 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be fair. For starters, it was he who removed my sources (vandalism) and committed the first 3RV; secondly, I was the one who asked the moderators to step in, but no one did; thirdly, my block history only contains one such incident, while his block history contains two such incidents -- altough I don't really see the relevancy in that. Anyway, I just wanted to say that both Dahn and he seems to accept the BBC source. If you check the Nicolae Ceausescu article, Anonimu accepted the source, but added his own version of "show trial," which I can also accept. I don't know why, but you moderators come to salvation at exactly the wrong time: when everything is solved, you show up. I'm not trying to be ungrateful, I just think it's funny. In my opinion, I should get 3 days and he should get 6 days, because he was also rude, making a sexual insultive remark by saying "let's get blown." What he means is that I need to get laid. He often insults me this way in another forum and this time, he made this remark on Wiki -- and yet I don't complain about that. But okay, I can wait 24 hours and readd the BBC source, but I don't think you, or any other administrator, have -- or should have --, the authority to place indef blocks on anyone for a simple matter such as this one. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fair based on your prior block history and follows wiki policy--you have 7 or so prior blocks and he two and you were indef blocked once for several months, all the way to Jimbo. If he and you have a long history of such conflicts, you may want to consider mediation or WP:ANI.Rlevse 21:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're using the American rationale on this; as when one committs three crimes, they go to jail for some 30 years or so. I have read about a kid who stole a bike and got some 20 or 30 years in jail, because it was his third felony. I think this is madness, but what I think doesn't matter so much. Can you show me where this policy says that one can get indef block in a scenario like this one, or can you take actions as you wish?

As for my past block history, two of my blocks were reverted and Jimbo's block, as I had said earlier, was for something totally different; altough, I'm not sure that would make any difference in your book. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Why have you blocked me? I was not involved in war edits, and I have not broken the 3RR. [User:Afrika_paprika]] did many mass reverts, against my referencied edits. I've defended 4 articles against the vandalism of a notorius troll. That's my right: Afrika is a multi banned user. It was User:AjdemiPopushi, a sockpuupet of him, to report me a a breaker of the 2RR. So I am clean and I did not "plus edit warring". Meanwhile I ws blcoked this usere did sever other vandalism against severe articles. Best regard.--Giovanni Giove 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ademji has now been id'd as a sock of afrika and indefinitely blocked, but this was not known and in the 3RR report filed. If I'd known that, the result would certainly have been different as there was definitely an edit war on the Ragusa article. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I went on what was known at the time and in the 3RR report.Rlevse 22:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was sure you was just doing your work. Please copy this message on my page. Not there is again the same problem, and the article should be sprotected. It is true; there is a war about Ragusa: that why I did several edits on each single points. All the edits must be referncied: that what I did. Thank you.--Giovanni Giove 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing warnings from talk pages

Have the rules changed on removing warnings from one's own talk page? According to WP:UP, "On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon."

The way I read it, it is neither against policy nor considered vandalism for one to remove warnings from his own user talk page. It is merely frowned upon. Has this policy changed? If so, perhaps a change to the guideline page is in order. --Tjsynkral 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it this way, if you remove warnings, what is it you're trying to hide? You would merely be putting yourself in an even worse position.Rlevse 23:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the warning were to be used against me later, it could be easily retrieved from the history page. I reserve the right to perform "housekeeping" on my own user page. Furthermore when users make incorrect allegations am I supposed to leave them on my User Talk page even though they are false? --Tjsynkral 23:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An incident has been opened regarding this matter. --Tjsynkral 23:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Okay, thanks for the reply. Brain40 ^{[talk] [contributions]}

Well, in my opinion, warnings should be left on a talk page to make referencing easier for the administrators. Well, back to patrolling the recent changes area. Good luck with things. Brain40 ^{[talk] [contributions]}

Could you direct me to the template that says "this article uses content from the 1999 Encyclopedia Americana"? Brain40 ^{[talk] [contributions]}

I don't know myself and a quick search didn't reveal it.Rlevse 23:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of warnings on user talk pages

From what I've seen in discussions on the administrator's forums, the new, but apparently unwritten policy is that editors are allowed to remove warnings from their user talk pages if they want to. Removing a warning is considered acknowledgement by the editor in question that they have seen the warning. Cla68 02:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So someone gets a valid vandism notice, removes it, gets reported to AIV and the admin checks to see if they have been warned and has to dig through history pages to find it? Ha, I'll stop fighting vandals if I have to do that.Rlevse 02:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with new "rule" or not, just letting you know what seems to be the situation now from what I've read on the admin pages. One of the reasons may be due to instances of editors harrassing other editors with warning banners and then arguing back and forth about whether the warning was justified or not. Cla68 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there rlevse...I appreciate your work on this, as tj continually removed the warning I attempted to post on his user page...which, ironically, was the 3rr rule on another page. TotallyTempo 02:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, as a student of the Charter School of Wilmington, I appreciate your help in banning that vandal. --CmaccompH89 02:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.Rlevse 02:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting / child abuse / censorship

Just seen your note calling me a troll. This is uncalled for:

1) My (extremely cautious) raising of the controversial issue of child abuse on the scouting page is what brought about your comment. The subsequent discussion seems mature and thoughtful so far - by contrast your comment seems unfair and (just possibly) defensive.

2) What exactly did I do to deserve your abuse? Was it raising the issue in the first place? Providing a reference to what seems to be a major US news story? Or was it (and here I may have been a little naive) noticing a book being cited by another editor (on child abuse and scouting) and believing the simple addition of a mention of this book would improve the comprehensiveness of the scouting page (I had not come across the book before it was mentioned in discussion - but I see there is something of a technical problem, in that there is no easy way to list this book, the scouting page having no "Further reading" section, where it might most comfortably belong)?

3) The W page on Trolls says "The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits, than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality." I believe my actions to have been properly motivated: it is inaccurate to ignore the child abuse question; it is true to say there are/have been child abusers attracted to scouting; and the addition of the book mentioned by others would have improved the comprehensiveness of the entry.

4) Part of the subsequent discussion focuses on questions of culture. I am British, and certainly within my culture (perhaps restricted to my age group, young middle-aged) references to "dodgy scout masters" are legion. No doubt other cultures experience things differently. (My being British also inevitably means that "separated by a common language" problems may arise between you and me.)

5) Finally, you call me a troll - and as your experience of W is quite astonishingly greater than mine, presumably this greater experience increases the offensiveness of what must therefore be taken as a carefully considered insult by you. But I do not want to trade blows, which makes it very hard to raise my final (and possibly most significant point) without appearing just to be getting back at you. Please assume the best of intentions when I ask whether there is not, to put it at its lowest, something of a potential conflict of interest in having you (and it seems Jergen, to whose attention I hope you will draw this note) so heavily committed to and experienced in both scouting and W? Is there not a risk of a certain slackening of objectivity? I am not making conspiratorial claims - but questions come to mind of subconscious self-censorship and the wish to protect something you respect greatly, indeed maintain "group norms", despite the potential conflicts between the two groups (W and scouts) concerned. If this comment is old news, apologies: the entries on scouting are so large, long and numerous I haven't checked everything. Testbed

Disruptive editor / revert war / I have reached three so can engage no more

Would you please review Panties in which the editor User:Robotman1974 has repeatedly reverted my edits, calling them "unsourced" and "OR." I have moved the objectionably material to the discussion page until it can be sourced, but Robotman continues to revert my other changes to the page regardless. Robotman will not respond to posts I made on his talk page. He refuses to discuss or reach consensus. 67.101.243.74 22:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rlevse, I have left an explanation of my actions here. Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 03:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]