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.

“Dog” The Teddy Bear

Thank you!

Rlevse, thanks very much! It is a happy day. Thank you also for choosing Anatomy of an Epidemic which got over 8,000 visits in DYK. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Rlevse! Thanks for helping me. Having never done this before, I really had no idea about hooks. I have added In Defense of Reason to the nomination list for articles created or expanded on October 12. Thanks again! — SpikeToronto 04:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Request regarding DYK expansion statements

Rlevse, can you please strikeout using strikeout markup, your inaccurate statements at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#14_October_-_Scott_Ashjian and at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Scott_Ashjian, regarding the over 5x expansion of the article? It was indeed expanded over 5x: [1] to [2]. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

We now know that and I've already stated as such. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Striking it out would hopefully help move the process along forwards. Could you please do that? It was not an easy feat to expand and research and improve the article. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, [3], much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed an alternative hook, ALT3, and agreed to suggestions by others - that it can be run on November 3, the day after the election [4]. Hopefully this is an acceptable proposal, and satisfactory to you? -- Cirt (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I feel a bit foolish about the barnstar you gave me. I only add stuff to Wikipedia because I enjoy doing it, and am much to quick to think "good enough" and move on. But thanks - I really value it. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm retarded. I have never done a DYK right. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

closing a perfect game

Good call, that should have SNOWed earlier. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia DC Meetup, October 23

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #12 on Saturday, October 23, 6pm at Bertucci's in Foggy Bottom. Special guests at this meetup will include Wikimedia CTO Danese Cooper, other Wikimedia technical staff and volunteer developers who will be in DC for Hack-A-Ton DC. Please RSVP on the meetup page.

You can remove your name from the Washington DC Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Belated thanks

Sorry this is late, but a belated thanks regarding Venues of the 1896 Summer Olympics, Venues of the 1904 Summer Olympics, Venues of the 1928 Winter Olympics, and Venues of the 1932 Winter Olympics on their DYKS. It is appreciated. Chris (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The article Grace Sherwood is scheduled to appear as the main page featured article in the near future

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on October 31, 2010. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 31, 2010. If you think that it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

100px|Statue of Grace Sherwood, the Witch of Pungo.

Grace Sherwood was a healer, midwife, and farmer from Princess Anne County and Pungo, Virginia. Sherwood's neighbors claimed that she ruined crops, killed livestock, and conjured storms. She was tried for witchcraft several times, the first in 1697 when she was accused of casting a spell on a bull, resulting in its death. The following year she was charged again, for bewitching the hogs and cotton crop belonging to one of her neighbors. Her final trial took place in 1706, when she was accused of bewitching Elizabeth Hill, causing Hill to miscarry. The court ordered that Sherwood's guilt or innocence should be determined by ducking her in water. If the water rejected her and she floated, then she was guilty; if the water accepted her and she drowned, then she was innocent. Sherwood floated to the surface, and subsequently spent up to seven years and nine months in the jail next to Lynnhaven Parish Church. She was free by 1714 and succeeded in recovering her property from Princess Anne County, after which she lived quietly until her death in 1740 at the age of 80. (more...)

Cool! Thanks for letting me know! — Rlevse • Talk • 23:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture isn't free

As nice a job as you did on the article, I'm afraid that, at the very least, the picture of the statue can't be used on the Main Page because it isn't a free image.

Under US law, images of copyrighted three-dimensional artworks are inherently derivative works regardless of who created the images (See the statutory text linked from {{Non-free 3D art}}). This image suggests that the statute was created and placed around 2007, so it's copyrighted, and so is the image itself. Therefore you can't license those pictures under CC or anything else as the rights are not yours.

The picture of the marker can't be free, either, since it's a reproduction of text copyrighted to the state of Virginia.

Both of those images should be here with rationales, not on Commons.

Arguably, since the article thus doesn't have any free images at present, it doesn't meet the informal rule that every FA have at least one free image and might be defeaturable on that basis. No one at the FAC seems to have brought this up, unfortunately (if you'd taken it through the usual route, I think someone at the PR or GA level might have caught it).

We could still run it on the Main Page on Halloween if we find a free image we can use, though. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

How about File:GraceSherwoodMarker.jpg ? -- Cirt (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As noted above that can't be used either since it is essentially a reproduction of copyrighted text.

Note, there is not an informal rule that an FA has to have an image, and an FA would not be defeatured for that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, glad to know it. I do recall a drive to audit every then-FA shortly after the current image policy was adopted to make sure they all had at least one free image; I thought that might have become policy since. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Drats! I never get the hang of panorama, derivative works and such. Poor ol' Grace Sherwood and her FA ;-) How about File:Salem Witch trial engraving.jpg, it could go in the historical context section and be the TFA image. I'll work on cleaning up the licenses and such. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this stuff. The whole purpose was to stop using photos from image banks, where people were losing money, not to stop taking photos of publicly visible artwork. To me a photo of a public artwork should be free. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

See Reviewing free images and Reviewing non-free images; it's much more complicated than that. We have to assure that our "free" content is actually free and correctly licensed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the purpose of the current image policy was to uphold the third pillar and "promote free content", i.e., totally out of principle without regard to the practical fallout like this. It had nothing, at the time, to do with any infringement that was causing anyone any measurable economic harm.

Yes, it would be nice if we had full German freedom of panorama, and three-dimensional public art could be freely photographed. Perhaps someday ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I just don't understand this derivative, panorama, type of image rules. My case can't be that obvious or it'd have been caught at FAC. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Not so-- we don't have enough image reviewers, and they don't always show up even though I badger them. It's difficult work, and others try to help out, which is why I was dismayed that Daniel Case appeared to be jabbing at FAC; lack of reviewers is a Wiki-wide problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone did say the article's images were okay at the FAC for this article. But given how confusing and messed up the image rules are, I can't blame anyone for not understanding them all. I sure don't understand them all. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I'm afraid this is a fairly straightforward case. File:GraceSherwoodCloseB.jpg File:GraceSherwoodBench.jpg and File:GraceSherwoodMarker.jpg can't be used as free images although I suppose a fair use claim could be made for using one of them in the Legacy section.©Geni 21:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted all from Commons, loaded the three images here with FURs, added two PD images of the Salem trials, which slightly precede her trial. There are no free images of Sherwood that directly apply. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for TFA notice

Many thanks for the TFA notice about Grace Sherwood on Halloween! — Rlevse • Talk • 23:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just for avoid future confusions. Congrats and if kids are a problem, you can request protection. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Urgent CU for law enforcement

Can you do a quick CU per Wikipedia:Ani#Death_threats_on_Flint.2C_Michigan and send an email to a detective for me? I'll email his address. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You have new mail. Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear Rlevse, thank you for awarding me with 'my day'. To see it first thing in the morning was a real treat. Thanks to you, my day has turned out even more beautiful. Appreciate you for doing that. I'll continue to do my bit in contributing to this vast enterprise. Cheers, and thanks again. Mspraveen (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Rlevse. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Death Bell 2 DYK

Hi! I replied to you on the Death Bell 2 DYK article. If it's not adequate, could you suggest something else I can do to fix it? Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I cleaned it up. Is it to your liking now? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors

I do not know if you have this file bookmarked, but DYKUdateBot is reporting that the protection on File:St Cosmas and St Damian, Stretford - geograph.org.uk - 702040.jpg will expire before the image is off the Main Page. Checking the logs, it appears there was a hook shuffle to address a daqte request that caused this image to be moved back three queue spaces. If you could extend the protect (it currently needs 13 hours to cover its upcoming appearance), it would be appreciated. --Allen3 ^talk 16:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Have re-protected for one day. Also now have that errors page watchlisted. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Tett turret DYK

I was blown away when I saw the stats for the Tett turret article. Astoundingly, more than 35,000 views. Alansohn (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I already saw that and I was surprised too. It's number 9 on the all-time list at Wikipedia:DYKSTATS#Lead_hooks_with_over_20.2C000_views. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mauna Kea

The FA nom for Mauna Kea has been restarted, so, yeah, can you check back again? Hopefully this time things will stick. ResMar 01:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Remind me in about 3 days. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nom for Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy

I've withdrawn my objection. If you wish to approve it, please do so. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Craquelure

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the DYK

Thanks for the DYK on Venues of the 1932 Summer Olympics. It is really appreciated. Chris (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again also for the Venues of the 1936 Winter Olympics and Venues of the 1936 Summer Olympics as well. Chris (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Crumstone Irma

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any sources (reliable or not) for either the birth or death dates of Crumstone Irma (or even years). I'll keep looking on and off in case it gets added to anything online and I'm aiming to visit the British Library newspaper archive in the next month or two and hope to find something there. Miyagawa (talk) 20:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks much!

But what did I do? I've just been editing away, doing my thing. Eastcote (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Days

I am faintly baffled by this, but thankyou :-). I wasn't online on the 23rd, but it was a very nice Saturday... Shimgray | talk | 15:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker): Shimgray, I have a similar program, so I can probably explain. It isn't about what the person who is awarded did on that particular day, but on days before that. The user's past edits, past interactions and past good works and deeds are all taken into account and there ya go, your own day. Hope that explains it a little better. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Always nice to learn someone notices :) Poliocretes (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Thing RFA

Are you going to give a reason why it was unsuccessful, for the 100+ support votes (I know why it wasn't unsuccessful and I agree on that, but most of these 100+ support votes won't have any clue, and to protect you from all the vandal fighting cabal). Thanks Secret ^account 23:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

59 opposes = 68%, 'nuf said. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And I will say that the temperament concerns weighed heavily here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as temperament concerns, was there anything besides the one breath of sarcasm thrashed (unfairly, IMO) around by the more houndish opposers that factored into your decision? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There was more than one breath, also maturity (sorta related to temperament), and the multiple RFAs with essentially no progress, it shows not listening to the community. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see where the final point comes from. But on the flip-side, consensus can change, and TTT did make some efforts to diversify his portfolio, as he pointed out (though I fear that this meagre start was overshadowed by his continuing vandalism extermination in some people's eyes). But I am still scratching my head about this shadowy talk of maturity problems that stretch beyond his continuing to tirelessly revert vandalism in spite of the supposed consensus which told him to do something else. Apologies if I seem naggish, I'm just trying to get a better feel of what exactly went into the decision, since no detailed explanation was given on the page for the close. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

68% does sum it up-- and there's people like me hankering for the threshold to be raised to 80. No reason to shoot the messenger here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes... I ran, I almost made it, but failed. What's done is done, there's always next time. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to put Huggle on a flash drive, delete all other traces from my computer, lock up the drive, and swallow the key. (Ok, not that elaborate, but, you get the picture.) In other words, I am going to see how bad my writing truly is how much content I can churn out this winter. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 01:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for not ignoring the concerns that the opposition brought up as so many supporters did. Had it been 68% with the opposes only being for a lack of content creation, it is highly likely this RFA would have passed per past precedent. Anyone that paid attention knew that the problems expressed by opposes extended far beyond this small issue. Thankfully, the bureaucrat made the right decision in this matter. Good luck on try number six five. Vodello (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Number 5 will be the next one, actually... the first RfA in that list, which is italicized, is a redirect. The sock that should not be (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making Halloween DYK-special

Thanks so much for putting together the Halloween DYK lists! That's real grunt-work, but it makes the whole project come together. Great work! - Tim1965 (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed several of them were yours ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

A DYK

I just put up John Varian for DYK. (He's Sheila's rather interesting grandfather). See what you think and if you have any comments, feel free to dive in. Montanabw^(talk) 02:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Rlevse, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Rlevse. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Dumb bot, it wasn't me that put it there. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Halloween

Hi, Do you have plans for putting the hooks together? (I saw the note on tim1965s page). If you have it in hand then fine, but I'm happy to help or do it. Victuallers (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I put the existing 37 into 5 sets already. See links on the Halloween subpage. Feel free to tweak them or add new ones if people write some. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Tags

User:GENIUS(4th power) is logged at WP:BANNED#G, but I can't access the userpage to tag it accordingly (it is not shrine-building, contrary to the protection reason given). Would you mind replacing the contents of the userpage with the following code exactly as it appears below please?

{{banned}}

{{sockpuppetry|status=proven|t=master|checked=yes}}

Thanks if you do. -- User:4cneortic 10:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK on Bing Miller

I'm planning to rewrite the article completely. As I seen several complete rewrites of articles that didn't reach the 5 time expansion rate reached DYK, mainly because the article was so bad on the beginning before I started butchering the article, is it possible I could get a DYK once I finish. Your the DYK expert so. Secret ^account 13:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it a copyvio? That's an exception. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the original edit, it was obviously copyied and pasted from somewhere, but that was over three years ago, it seems like the website went out of buisness as I can't find it, and web archive doesn't have exact quotes. Even if I can't find the website, it was pure OR an earlier edit removed this comment "Bing Miller was a baseball man through-and-through, and within that profession there is no higher praise". Secret ^account 00:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The original edit is only about 3 lines. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant this Secret ^account 00:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That is an obvious paste and I poked around, while the article is prettier now, it's still pretty much the same verbiage. So I'd call this a copvio fixing. Make sure you mention that when you post it for DYK nom. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

From http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&v=l&bid=3373&pid=9642 found it. Secret ^account 00:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You could delete the copyvio versions and restore the original version and my last edit? Secret ^account 01:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OK — Rlevse • Talk • 01:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok Thanks Secret ^account 01:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you also delete User:Secret/Bing Miller, apparently the CSD admins are on a mini-vacation Secret ^account 01:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Rogue administrators

I am writing because one or more admins are blocking accounts from users who happen not to agree with them. My crime was to post these comments: User talk:BadBabysitter. I will leave it to you to decide whether or not the charges are valid. My attempts to complain have also been blocked. Attempts to contact you by email and phone also failed. I had to change my IP address in order to be able to contact you. I suspect a very large number of users have similarly been falsely accused and have been unable to contact you because they did not know how to alter their IP address. Alternate user name (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're a block evading sock? I also see you're spamming all the arbs? Can a {{TPS}} admin look into this and take care of it? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done The dangers of being an arbcom member... NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Danke. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"One-Revert Rule"

Don't know if you know how this works or not, but I'm confused. Specifically I've encountered a "one-revert rule". There was some discussion on Talk:Orange Institution a few days ago concerning the KKK. Since then I've been out of town three days. Today I had a chance to review sources, and I deleted a sentence in the Orange Institution [[5]] article based on a vague citation. I was immediately reverted and received a notice [[6]] on my talk page about a "one-revert rule" applying to Orange Institution. As I see it, my original deletion, after a three-day hiatus, started the ball. The other person reverted it. If I again make my same edit (the deletion) will I violate this "one-revert rule". Or will he violate it if he again reverts my deletion of that sentence? Not that I'm into edit warring, and I'm a reasonable sort, but it seems this "rule" is being used more in a threatening way than in the way it was intended, i.e., "This page will read the way I want it to, and if you cross me once, you get blocked". Reasoned discussion is much more productive. Eastcote (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I've spend lots of time in my wiki years at places like WP:ANI and WP:SPI, plus I'm a wiki arbitrator. I'm well acquainted with 1RR and 3RR. 3RR is the standard but in contentious articles and topics 1RR may be imposed. The article in questions seems to be part of "The Troubles", which are articles related to Ireland, specifically Northern Ireland, which has long been a problem area on wiki (Brits vs Irish, Protestants vs Catholics, etc). HOWEVER, 1RR and 3RR have a "24hour" clause, well 99% of the time anyway. So ask the person who warned you to tell you where the ruling of 1RR came from and whether it's exempt from the 24h rule (which I highly doubt). Feel free to link to my post here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

OFenian has been blocked under those sanctions so he knows it well. The template says "WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per day)." so it's for sure not exempt from the 24h rule. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The notice says to seek a neutral opinion. Could you check out the discussion andprovide a neutral take on it? Eastcote (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: DYK for Operation Payback

Thanks. I added it to WP:DYKSTATS as well. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing the joke

Here, you stated that John and Christopher Wright "didn't fly".

The verb "to fly" has more than one meaning; in this case, it's obvious that the intentionally-deceptive meaning was that it be synonymous with "to flee" (as in, the "fight-or-flight response").

It's an archaic use of 'flew' -- a modern writer would say 'fled'. But that was the joke. DS (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh DOH. Maybe better for April Fools Day. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

X at the Phillies

Hi, if you'd like to comment, there's a discussion here. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!

Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI comments

Re: [7] -

I agree that Roux' previous comment was somewhat scatalogical, but your comment took a step towards personalizing it towards him, and that seems to have escalated into a multiparty flamefest both from and towards him.

I think this illustrates why WP:CIVIL is important - He was grumpy and brusque, your response was as well, and was taken very personally and became an incident where none was necessary. Did you need to respond in a personalizing manner? Was it wise, given that which has now occurred?

Blowing his complaints off with the edit summaries you did, while not technically abusive, make you look bad as well. You said something you have to have realized was at least a little snarky. He objected, and you blew him off. That's not de-escalating the situation. It's pretty much guaranteed to have the end result of baiting them into more intemperate responses, in fact, even if that wasn't an intentional outcome on your part (and I see no evidence or hold any belief that you did).

Bad night all around. You could have chosen a path to help things a couple of times and didn't. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I was planning on wrapping this up with some other friendly warnings to people when I ran across this on Roux' talk page.

The ANI and other behavior (such as here) I assumed good faith about, that on the other hand, clearly crossed the line into baiting and personal attack on Roux.

It's 2:20am where I am right now, and I am in no mood to spend another hour developing up an integrated timeline of all of the different people's edits across all the pages, to see who did what when that led to what, and try and ascribe root cause blame for what parts of the escalation. Not going there. But not going there is not sweeping this under the rug.

What you did tonight crossed the line into stuff I have blocked experienced users for in the past. Please consider this a strong warning to cease and desist further interactions with Roux for the time being.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

GWH, the mere fact that this is coming so many hours later, what happened to "blocks are preventative not punitive"? (I know you haven't actually blocked Rlevse, but it would be a very bad idea.) I don't think this helped any at all. StrPby (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse didn't explicitly do so, but the other two involved parties wandered over to my talk page both in rough paraphrase demanding I do something about it (at a time that I happened to be offline at a technical conference evening session). I responded as soon as I had realized what happened after getting online (which wasn't immediate).

There was no block; this was a warning. Warnings are supposed to be informative, and to remind people about policy and behavior. A warning some time after the fact, often some time after as it takes time for other admins or editors to notice the particular issues, is not unusual at all. Sometimes days, in this case hours.

Had there been much worse behavior and a block was issued, it would still be preventive, on the theory that parties behaving sufficiently badly before they went to bed are likely to pick it up in the morning and keep going. We're not there in this incident, and none was issued. All parties here have in the past listened to discussion and warnings and I AGF about their general intent towards Wikipedia and the community. I have had situations with other editors in the past where I have blocked 6 or 8 hours after the incident (or, rarely, longer), when there was stronger reason to believe the problem would continue later. And I have no doubt I'll do it again, regrettably. But not tonight, for these people, based on what happened here that I've seen.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Just saying. Considering the level of problems at DYK, I too was pretty darn offended by Rlevse's comments tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that all this coming hours later well after I backed out is somewhat disconcerting and really doesn't help. My last involvement in this was about 8 hours ago but eh. Yea I'll admit I could have handled it better. Other people, including Roux, continued this way past when I did. And I must say, with all the complaints from non DYK regulars who haven't lifted a finger to actually help, I'm pretty darn offended. And Sandy, that comment last night was not directed at you, but certain others. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, my jaw is wagging more than anyone's, so I didn't appreciate it. And most editors I know are already working their asses off, so the comment wasn't helpful. There is concern at ANI about a copyvio in today's ("your") Featured article. I would be most pleased if you would get on it IMMEDIATELY. And if there's any more of that, well ... [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was working my ass off too but since I'm so incompetent I'll let the gurus fix it. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)