Jump to content

User talk:Rlevse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A Nobody (talk | contribs) at 18:03, 13 March 2010 (→‎Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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


User:Rlevse User talk:Rlevse User:Rlevse/playground User:Rlevse/awards User:Rlevse/files Special:Emailuser/Rlevse Special:Contributions/Rlevse User:Rlevse/images User:Rlevse/Notebook User:Rlevse/sandbox User:Rlevse/Todo User:Rlevse/Tools
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.


“Dog” The Teddy Bear

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

my day

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

Thank you!

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

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

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

Ping

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

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)[reply]

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

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

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)[reply]

Thanks!

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

how? I got booted in round 1. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. I misunderstood then. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Durova

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

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

IP already blocked, IP range is highly dynamic. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Are you talking about current socking or long ago socking? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've asked MQS, on his talkpage, to comment here. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The past sock cases are listed in WP:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt#General comments. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rlevse&oldid=349648226"