User talk:Rlevse

——————————————— 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.

Archives

“Dog” The Teddy Bear

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 Nobody^{My talk} 00:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Responding to your warning with "go away" isn't very nice either. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

From the editor: Call for writers

2009 in review: 2009 in Review

Books: New Book namespace created

News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more

In the news: Wikipedia in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more

Features and admins: Approved this week

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

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 [1] and the editors User Page yesterday. [2] Is some further action appropriate at this time? Thank you.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And another one today. [3] "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)[reply]

I need time to sort through this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, please take your time. I know you are busy. Meanwhile, here is another sample post from today.[4]-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Will pointed out [5], 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)[reply]

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,[6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You deserve it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks — I mean, that doesn't really answer my question, but I do appreciate it. Kyle Barbour 09:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for York Imperial

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more

In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more

WikiProject report: Where are they now?

Features and admins: Approved this week

Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I didn't know you were blocked. The award stands regardless. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mao protection

Hi Rlevse, I'm not sure why you thought it necessary to protect Mao: The Unknown Story ([7])? 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)[reply]

I saw it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you care to respond, or were you just planning on ignoring it? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is behavior and CU evidence. That's all that needs to be said here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Right, thanks for commenting, i'll watch it and try to keep it clean. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Must be huh? Hehe. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Are you saying Caspian and you don't get along? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You really need to watch such remarks. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]