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.

responsible (in part or in total) for ethnically cleansing wiki of a despised perspective.

Do we really have to put up with this from Juanita?[1] I got a one week ban (a year ago) for a comment that was nowhere near this level of insulting? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Can you get me the diff that got you blocked? Thanks for pointing this out. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, Your last block was over a year ago, so I suspect it is unrelated. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The first third of the paragraph I have an issue with. The latter 2/3 is okay because she's saying 'if you do this to only one side...'. I've asked for evidence or a refactor and warned all. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I did warrent my 1 week holiday from editing as i did need to cool down, its just accusations of genocide are a bit much, her point that to be just all sides must be treated the same i see as "self evident". ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand. Keep me informed. She's had her warning. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I see where I am being informed on. It is clear that certain people are working their level best to get me removed from wiki. Lawrence Cohen and Hypnosadist and others have made no bones about this, and are working on it on the workshop page. In fact, if anyone reads the top section of the talk page with an open mind, the personal attacks against me and generalized anti-Zionist 'remarks' have passed without comment. Lawrence Cohen has made his very own proposal to block me indefinitely. I have not been going to anyone in response to the provocations dished out to me but I can certainly find plenty of evidence of them if anyone wants it. Comments such as this.

Regarding the remarks I made about wikiforPalestine. I was not accusing anyone in particular of anything. The evidence for my comments have to do with the very existence of the group and its requirements. The wikiforpalestine group is a group of 12 established editors here at wiki who were required to have demonstrated 'proof of anti-zionist edits.' It is clear that these (unknown) editors were well aware of the CAMERA issue here, as they followed the discussion that has been going on here at wiki; the proof is that they wrote to it on their Yahoo! page, even using my name to refute me, there until they suddenly disbanded. They met under a banner of divestment, boycott of Israel, and anti-Zionism. We know nothing about them -- not their wiki identities or positions or what they do here on wiki or outside. There is every reason to believe that they are attempting to cleanse wiki of a certain point of view and substitute another; and proof of that is essentially from their own group-statement. The "ethnic cleansing" statement I made had nothing to do with genocide- that was Hypnosadist's prejudicial imposition on my words. I will drop the ethnic part if that will make muster and talk only of 'cleansing wiki' of an zionist perspective if that is better. I tried to put up a screenshot of the group's statement for my talk page User_talk:Dajudem, but it was tagged for speedy deletion by Lawrence Cohen and gone in 5 minutes (+/-). If you would like to see it, let me know. Thanks. Juanita (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clean up the stmt as much as you feel you can and give me link to that item, admins can still look at it, even if it was deleted. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to the dif: [2]Juanita (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's much better. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Because I believe that the accusations I made about Hypnosadist and Lawrence Cohen deserve some evidence, I put up some evidence at my talk page (bottom) of some of the really uncivil and inciting comments that were made to me here at wiki the first couple days of this investigation. There is plenty more where this came from, unfortunately... Juanita (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Question. I already submitted a long statement on the evidence page. Can I change it, delete some, add some? Juanita (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can change, add to, edit or delete evidence in your won evidence section. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse i'm leaving this arb, given that gross racist accusations are met with refactor it and its all ok but civil questions mean i am to be admonished for civility issues, i'm leaving before i get in more trouble. The none stop attacks are driving me to distraction, they started the moment Camera was caught and have not stopped for one day since. If you need to ask me a question come to my talk page, if kirill wants admonish me for asking a civil question too many times he may as well do it now, but i never misrepresented wikipolicy. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Incivility on Request for Arb page

Hello. I notice that you're trying to maintain a civil atmosphere on the RFA CAMERA page (e.g. ). Could you perhaps similarly enjoin Eleland to immediately remove his insulting description of Gni/Ini (in his world they are the same person) as a witch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gni (talk • contribs) 14:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I pinged him. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Gregory E. Miller (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you for adopting me and thanks for being my friend. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

User_talk:Shalom#Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Iwazaki

Please take a look at this discussion on my talk page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Responded there. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Question only you can answer

How do you reference information? When I looked it up on Wikipedia, It didn't make any sence to me. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

See your UC page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages

Deleting "Template:Scoutlogo" is okay, but you should also delete the talk page, which in this case was also a redir. Talk pages should not be orphaned. Thanks — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete Template talk:Scoutlogo because it's linked to from an archived discussion, User talk:Gadget850/Archive 2007#Scoutlogo rationales. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Clerk stuff

On his talk page. Done. Ncmvocalist (talk)

Yeah, I self-reverted in the same minute I made the edit (it was just for fun).

At this exact point in time, I'm not sure if I'm in favour of having any official role on Wikipedia, excepting coordinating/maintaining the assessment dept. of a couple of WikiProjects - something I'll be doing a lot more of next month. I'll think about it after that though. Cheers for the info - Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Appeal archiving

Hi Rvlevse, thanks for archiving my appeal. Where has it been archived to? And can a clerk note be added citing jpgordon's instructions? I'd like to be able to link to case as closed from my user page. (I've already had one interested user ask me how I know the appeal was rejected.) Thanks in advance.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Made link, answered on your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 20	12 May 2008	About the Signpost

Explicit sexual content draws fire	Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia
Foundation receives copyright claim from church	Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy
Update on Citizendium	Board candidacies open through May 22
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area	New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton"	News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 04:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RFAR update

Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Betacommand_blocked_for_sockpuppetry could you updated RFAR/BC and RFAR/BC_2 block sections? MBisanz ^talk 08:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Any admin can notate an arb block log. I'll go do these. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Arb clerk

Yes I am! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me work on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Likewise Rlevse, I'd be delighted to join up as a clerk. Let me know when you've discussed it. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Hey there, I've decided to resume the admin coaching. I'm confident I can juggle all I'm doing at the moment, and do the admin coaching. Is that all OK with you? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a question, people, as I told you before, are mentioning an RFA to me, possibly within 2 weeks or so. What do you think of this? As many have offered, I was just wondering if you thought I was ready, or would be nominating. Just wondering :) Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 01:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep working in as much admin stuff and areas as possible. I'll nom if you want. I'd say 3-6 weeks from now if you keep at the current pace. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, we were thinking around 3 weeks or so. I've been trying to answer a question at the help desk, but people keep beating me to it :(. I'll continue at the rate I'm going at the moment, I'd like to write a DYK some time, but with the 24 Project, I've been rather busy. We were thinking around, early June. I'll try answering the remaining questions now. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

SP

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --evrik ^(talk) 16:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oh yeah, User:English Subtitle is a sock of our friend. --evrik ^(talk) 16:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, if you have any influence with Evrik/South Philly, could you please ask him/them to stop adding sockpuppets and wasting the time of editors who would rather be thinking about Wikipedia articles. [3] betsythedevine (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Request

As the first blocking admin against TTN, can you please consider reviewing the latest block against TTN, per my general request made here? I just don't understand how this action can be sanctioned. How can an admin be justified in imposing a block that is twice the length prescribed by the remedial measures of the arbcom in the first place. And on the flimsiest of "violations" no less that require wikilawyering that would Portia proud. Why have rules if admins can simply deem them optional and be indifferent to remonstration? This, surely, is unacceptable caprice that suits the admins personal views on a contentious issue. Or am I missing something? Eusebeus (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Appears it'll resolve itself, the blocking admin made a proposal and TTN seems to have accepted. Let's let this play out. Let me know if it goes awry. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted a note to Vassyana's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Freddy vs. Jason

I think something is technically wrong with the Freddy vs. Jason page. It shows half a paragraph on the viewing page, but on the editing page, everything is in order! In addition, he cast table was suppost to be in the paragraph section, but its at the bottom! I need help and you were the first person I thought of. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

You're probably viewing a section, not the whole article. Click the edit button on the top row, not an edit button on the right. Move the cast section. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I already tried that. At least 10 times. I don't know what I can do. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)) Wait, it's alright again! Gregory E. Miller (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

CAMERA lobbying

Thanks for the notice on the workshop page. Might I suggest something similar on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign, which is just as bad? -- ChrisO (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. There I'd just be regular admin and it's not an arb but on the arb case I have some acutal authority since I'm a clerk. I'll post a note, but even if I protect it, they could go create a new sub page. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Understood, but I think it's better coming from someone uninvolved in the case. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Identity outing in the ArbCom case

Hey there, can you take a look at these edits? One by Oboler and one by Southkept. I realize there's an urge to finger-point at Electronic Intifada and/or wikiforpalestine, and if they have done a wrong equal to Israpedia then by all means drag em before their own ArbCom. But these two users are linking to off-site profiles and such of what is purported to be another user's real-life identity, which seems to be crossing the line. Tarc (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Southkept [4]

For Oboler, it is all one big edit. The section I was concerned about is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence#Evidence presented by Oboler, notably the sentence that reads "Evidence that user BangPound is XXX can be seen by googling BangPound and checking pretty much any profile using that username". (XXX is my own-self edit). In that section noted, it contains someone's, presumably Bangpound's, real nameTarc (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

the diff by southkept is dead, so it's a non-issue. I'm cleaning up the rest of this. Thanks for letting me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, appologies, I did almost post to your talk page to ask first. I figured given the name has been released in the press it wasn't really an outing, but more a verifaction. I did also have ChrisO (one of the admins involved in this) effectively outing me [5] , now I was also ready posting under my own last name and the person I was speaking to (who had attacked me then appologised) was told this by myself in private (seemed the honest thing to do) after he attacked in an unacceptable way and misready what I had written. He's appologised and all is forgiven... but I do wonder if I was wrong here if Chris was not likewise wrong?

Also, I avoided posting what i put on the evidence page on the web prior to this. If there any reason it can't be put up outside of Wikipedia, given people seem to be questioning it. (I'm assume the answer I get is "none of our business what happens outside of Wikipedia", but if not please let me know) Many thanks and sorry for the trouble. Oboler (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Even if it's findable by google or whatever, it's considered contra to wiki policy and spirit to out someone. As for you being outed, it's not obvious as that diff refers to another diff, probably why it wasn't noticed. Since that page is not part of the arb case directly, I don't watch it. You need to report this stuff. I'll ask ChrisO about outing you. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. My ability to communicate is rapidly going down hill (given the lateness of the hour) so appologies that my second paragraph didn't actually make any sense. What I was trying to ask is whether there is any Wikipedia policy that effects what people do outside Wikipedia? Also... when you suggest reporting being outed (I assume I don't need to in this case as you are talking to ChrisO?)... but for future reference, where and how does one report something like this? (That's not an ArbCom case) Many thanks again. Oboler (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiki has no control of what people do outside wiki, but if they're abusive and have a wiki account, it is possible for that account to be blocked. As for future outings or whatever, report to an admin you trust or report to WP:ANI and an admin will pick up the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping it was a hypothetical, but please see [6] given we've already discussed this and you know what's going on... would you mind? I've given an account of myself there as I think that is the proper thing to do. I would welcome a comment from yourself there. Thank you to the answer to the other question. I believe if something is outside wikipedia's policy (say, if it is original research, thought is clearly not what we are talking about) then even though it can't be on wikipedia, I believe it would be ok outside wikipedia provided it was polite, valid research, and relevant. I think I'll have to take my chance on that... thank you for talking it over with me. And I do appologise for making extra work like this. Oboler (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You outed yourself on your own talk page, changes all the rules. You also use your own real name, you may want to change it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There could be two people with my name. There is still a level of outing here and linkage between off Wikipedia and on Wikipedia which seems odd. Also in the last link I gave you it seems to be a complain that is outside of NPOV and more along the lines of witch hunting. Regardless though, I'm for bed. Thank you again for your time. Oboler (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Pagemove protections

It's preemptive protection from User:Grawp pagemoves. He seems to like moving featured geography articles. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

CC referance

Do not reference to me with my former nick again. It is the number one way to irritate and annoy me. -- Cat ^chi? 01:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE block

I think that it would have been better if you had given a chance for other involved editors to express an opinion about the dispute before blocking User:Momento. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

See [7]] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I guess I was a bit hasty there. I'll post on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, does this have anything to do with this MedCab case or the related ArbCom case? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 02:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Please also note that editors in this dispute are engaged in mediation about these articles with the MedCab Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission‎, and despite an invitation to User:Francis Schonken (the user that filed the WP:AE request) to join in dispute resolution with other editors,[8] he has not done so, choosing instead to make unilateral edits[[9]] that have not been discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to fall asleep. I promise I'll look at all this again in the am. I asked Momento to comment on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Momento was warned at User talk:Momento#Warning and after Francis made his enforcement request I alerted Momento within 10 minutes. Francis' edits were no more "unilateral" then Momento's, and the majority of edits by both parties have been unrelated to the active topics in mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's poor form to criticize an editor for failing to accept an invitation to join mediation that was extended only six hours earlier. We usually don't hold mediation "against" anyone, and he hasn't answered the invitation one way or another yet. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• And, erm, could someone please let me know if they do join the mediation? Would help quite a lot. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about not notifying Momento. I should have, my bad.

Could someone post this on Momento's page?:

Momento, please lift the prohibition for me to post on your talk page, which you issued several months ago, User talk:Francis Schonken#Invading my space. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Tx! --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've unblocked you. I strongly suggest some sort of WP:DR, such as mediation, on this and related issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse - dispute resolution has already been used - there have been multiple mediations in the past including this editor. The current multi-editor mediation shows little progress in handling a mountain of issues, and the areas this editor has been fighting over aren't even included. The case went to ArbCom who handed it over to admins for enforcement. I think it may be helpful to unarchive the WP:AE request in order to get more input and to review more evidence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair. I'll do it now. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That'll give Momento a chance to explain himself as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

GJ sockpuppetry case

Just bringing it to your attention. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Greg Jungwirth (2nd) and RFCU at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Greg Jungwirth. treelo _talk 16:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, seeing as this nobody else has touched either case yet I'd like to draw your attention again but this time ask for assistance rather than just notify you of these things. There has been no action on either the SSP case or the RFCU after nearly a week and I'm certain that is much too long for these cases to still be useful in finding these vandals out. Please make some time to check these out. treelo _talk 13:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not being a CU, there's nothing I can do about the RFCU. A CU will get to it. As I've been dealing with both you and the alleged sock, I can not act on the case and maintain neutrality. I hope you understand. You can ask someone else to look at it if you want, or wait til someone gets to it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dang, neturality! Knew I was missing something with this issue. Thanks for telling me, I've requested someone else go look at it as there's a backlog on SSP which doesn't seem to be moving. treelo _talk 22:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

RFAR/Mongo

Could you explain what the result of the clarification is: no action, or defer to community? Sceptre ^(talk) 16:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically, they're leaving the prior decision intact, "It is not prohibited to create a Wikipedia article on Encyclopædia Dramatica (per discussion above)" but whether to create the article (ie, is ED notable) up to the community, and that if one can link to it is dependent on that notability. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely that means remedy 1 is still in effect, yes? Sceptre ^(talk) 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Remedy one of the original ruling, yes, I'd say so. ED links removable unless the community decides ED warrants an article, which I personally think it does not warrant one. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify on the talk of the article? Your comment is being interpreted as saying a consensus can overrule the ruling (which, per Jimbo, it cannot) Sceptre ^(talk) 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So commented. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Personally, it's a whole mess, and I'd really like the arbitrators to decide: "Does remedy #1 apply to the article? y/n" instead of the decisions which for some mean "we won't regulate the content, but nonetheless the remedy sticks" and for others "we won't regulate the content, including a link and/or URL". The same goes for link bans in general, and whether URLs fall under that. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Camp Minsi

FYI. Please see my comments Talk:Camp Minsi#draft. --evrik ^(talk) 16:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Advice?

Hi Rlevse,

Really sorry to be bothering you again, but things seems to be getting out of hand here [10]

It may be coming to a close now, but if not... what should I do? It seems to be getting more and more personal and I feel I'm being attached by this user every which way, often with statements that are inconsistent with previous statements they made. They also seem to jump back and forth between policies on notability (for a page), reliability (as a source for a link), reasonableness of a link (e.g. citing where you saw something), and finally broadening an attack that started by saying I linked to resources I published too often (3 years ago - and which I've explained) to saying people in general are linking to me more often than the press coverage my site gets would in their opinion warrent. I don't even know where to start with that last one. If people are using my site as a source because it is the best place to find certain information (original research, historical documents, or archives of things no longer available else where, or indeed the place they saw something regardless of whether it is available else where)... I mean what is that supposed to mean? That I'm guilty of not getting enough press? Or they don't like the press references and scholarly references I gave them? Sigh. Sorry for the long rant. This is just very frustrating and I don't know what to do about it. Perhaps if there are further replies I should just not respond... but doesn't that signal I'm accepting what ever they then say as irrefutable fact?

Appologies again, if you would prefer I bothered someone else for advice and would care to recommend someone I'd be happy to do that.

Oboler (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

re on your talk. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean [11] rather than my talk? At any rate after posting this turns up [12] I have no objection to the IP check given the other person is not me and in all likelyhood may well be in another country to me. The "evidence" looks like harasment and coming so close after I ask for advice above, perhaps stalking as well. What do I do? Oboler (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's not you and someone you have no contact with, you have nothing to worry about. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not me and the only contact I have had with this person has been on Wikipedia. I assume the IP Check has been properly requested and will be done... but I don't see where it will turn up? The accusation will remain there on the evidence page (even after its disproved) unless CJCurrie removes it himself I assume? Where does the result of the IP check show up? Unrelated but sorry again about replying within his evidence (making work for yourself) I saw someone else had done it and temporarily forgot the instructions at the top of the page. Sigh. Oboler (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I found this [13] there is a note there asking if this shouldn't be done by a Clerk (which would I guess be yourself?) Sorry! Oboler (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to genetics

Hi there, I've written this article as an attempt to introduce the articles on DNA, Gene and Genetics in a completely non-technical and approachable way. I was looking for some good editors with no background in science to look this over and advise me on how it could be improved. Would you have time to help with this? All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

re on your talk. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to actually apply the block

linky. Also, as is traditional with this user, he started a new sock as soon as the old one wasn't useful anymore. This appears to be the latest incarnation. Enigma ^message 00:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

link and link. Credit to User:EJF for discovering the latest sock. Enigma ^message 00:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I tagged and blocked 92.5.36.7‎, SimsFan, and King Monty IV. Let me know if there are others. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

another sock. Every time his account gets blocked, he quickly opens another account. Do you think RFCHU is warranted? Enigma ^message 22:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, file it, and ask for the underlying IP range to be blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SimpsonsFan08‎ Feel free to adjust it if the case can be improved. Enigma ^message 23:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you close Sumerophile sockpuppet case?

The request was to leave the case open a couple days. This isn't over yet. Although banned for sockpuppetry, the obvious sockpuppetry is still continuing; today's latest incarnation is called "User:Alwaysingoodfaith", not to mention several more 144.* IP's... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The ones in the RFCU were all blocked, no reason to keep the SSP open. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No reason? So I guess the admin politely requesting that it be kept open is "no reason"? I will now have to re-open it, because the socks are coming out on a daily basis... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Open a new case. Adding new socks to existing ones that are blocked already just confuses the case. If there are lots of socks, your best bet is an rfcu as that will find all of them faster anyway. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why?

I was wondering why you deleted my page "Deez Nuts". It was not created as a joke- if you look it up on google or some other search engine it is a legitimate game that people play (well, not really a game, but that is the closest thing it can be classified as). As I said on the discussion page, I realize that I did not add very much information (I don't have time- I'm actually supposed to be doing my homework right now) but I believe that if given time, others will add to the page. Please reply. Lambchops4dinner (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that- I am new to Wikipedia. But I have to disagree with you. It really is an actually game/ catchphrase. Please see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=deez+nutz Lambchops4dinner (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice, that link says the phrase originated with a 1992 track, but I certainly heard it in the early 80s... ! Sorry for butting in... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I also couldn't help but notice that in the last month alone, another tried to create a Deez Nuts page, but it was deleted. I think this shows that there are people that think the phrase is notable. Lambchops4dinner (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It also shows there are people who think not. If you want it to exist and not get deleted again, you need to write it in a serious fashion, with good refs, layout, etc. You can work on it on a subpage of your userspace if you want and only create it in article space when it's ready. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. But I failed to copy what I had already written on the page. Is there any way I can get that text back? Lambchops4dinner (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Also- how do you make a subpage in your userspace? Lambchops4dinner (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Lambchops4dinner/Sandbox contains the last version of the file, just put a forward slash in the address after your username and type the name. Don't make any copyvios either. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I answered your question: [14] Cheers,

--Molobo (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Fair use rationale for Image:Boy and girl scouts in Vietnam.jpg

Thank you for fixing. I have updated the source of the photo. Thanks again.Motthoangwehuong (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Setanta747

Hey there! Re. the above editor, mind if I unblock early if I can get an undertaking that he won't continue to revert-war of those articles? - Alison ^❤ 18:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK with me, I see you and others have turned him down ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 18:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Great - thanks for that! I've left some unblock terms on his talk page, so. If he'll agree, I'll unblock - Alison ^❤ 19:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Committed Identity

Please see your email for my hash string for the commited user feature. Tyw7, formerly Troop350 (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)19:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Warned & Molobo

Hello! As you warned me on talk after Molobo brought my name to AN/AE, I urge you to have a look into Molobo's edits that precedes my responses, eg. on Talk:Karkonosze. As he again attacked me on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Digwuren_edit_restrictions_following_edit_war_suggested, I have answered there and requested [15] that he is added to the Digwuren list. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

The warning you gave Matthead didn't help. See here [16] Continued remarks for which he was notified not to make:

Personal attacks are continued "your behaviour on Talk:Karkonosze was appalling"

Accusations based on ethnic background: "desperately trying to push his Polish POV" --Molobo (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also here is something I consider rather disruptive: Changing names of Polish politicians who resisted Germanisation to German version and giving German names to locations in modern Poland: [17] I have nothing against giving German names in historical context but giving names to modern locations in Poland seems disruptive. --Molobo (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Geez, another name battle. I suggest you report all this at ANI or AE. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)