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

Guido

If you get a chance, take a look at this. Cool Hand Luke 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU for giving us a rest from GdB.[1] He had begun applying his talents at Global warming and related articles, accusing those who dared disagree with his edits of "blind reverting" and such. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My day

You are such a sweetie :) Shell ^babelfish 13:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Aw shucks. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

• From the editor: Browsing the archives
• Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
• Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
• News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Vote counting

Is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Proposed decision#Implementation notes meant to say that the following remedy passed?

1) Mass date delinking is restricted for six months to changes prescribed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and may only occur at times when the page is not in a disputed state.

Because I count no support votes, 7 oppose, and 2 abstain. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Happy Theleftorium's Day!

That's so nice of you, thanks a bunch! I really appreciate it! :) TheLeftorium 13:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured topic for Medal of Honor

Hello again, I am creating a featured topic for the Medal of Honor but I have never done one before and could use some advice. Could you take a look and let me know if it looks ok before I submit it to be featured? I created a rough version in a sandbox under my user name with several articles and lists I have found already. Since there are at least a dozen lists (not all featured yet but I am working on it with help from others) and hundreds of articles I thought this would be a good topic. Here is a link to it Featured topic for Medal of Honor.--Kumioko (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I only have one FT to my credit, the USNA alumni lists, so I'd suggest you ask for input at WT:FTC. For yours, there are thousands of MOH recipients so trying to include articles on recipients would be near impossible to be comprehensive without somehow limiting scope. Getting the whole set of lists of recipients by war to FL status would be awesome, though I recall many recipients don't have articles. I recall I was one of the people that helped save the MOH article from a FAR way back when. RIght now you have a mix of battle, list, and recipient articles. I'd say focus more so your breadth is not so wide, like the full set of lists by war, plus the two alum lists. But again, I only have one FT to my credit, so ask for more input. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Great thanks--Kumioko (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for keeping an eye on Portal:Contents/Portals and its associated talk page for vandalism and spam, much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Np. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

That page could probably be indef semi-protected, in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry to bother you. I believe two editors who are uninvolved in the ADHD articles and scuro are going to try and hijack the arbcom to attack me. I have opened up an RfC here.

• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence#Can I be allowed additional space to respond to the accusations?

--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I dub thee...

Carc's name is easy. Mine imminently unpronounceable ;-) — Rlevse • Talk •

I'd pronounce it [əɺɛvs] in a pinch.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 14:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I pronounce it R-l-e-v-s-e.  iMatthew :  Chat  (Review Me) 15:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

But then you'd need to have a melody to go with it! o/~ R - l - e - v - s - e Find out what it means to me! o/~ — Coren ^(talk) 15:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to say "ARE-lev-ezz". And yes, I know I'm adding a vowel that's not really there. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

List of United States Military Academy alumni (academics)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of United States Military Academy alumni (academics), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: List of United States Military Academy alumni (athletic figures). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Dumb bot. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

TOV

Hi, There's a TOV against Barack Obama being discussed here on ANI. I'd be glad to contact the FBI if someone (hint) runs a CU. I feel these always need to be reported and let law enforcement figure it out. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

On It. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reported it. Yes, they were very interested. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

		The Real Life Barnstar
		For your great work in reporting a threat of violence to authorities today. In my opinion, that is the most important work we can do here. Kudos! Toddst1 (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks, and no problem, and yes, it's very important. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you already have something like this in your toolbox, but feel free to plagiarize. Toddst1 (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually no I don't, I called them. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

All I did was close it ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 23:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama threat

I don't think Asdfzxcvqwerty (talk · contribs) is new to Wikipedia, but is a person who has been here several times before. Take a look at the deleted and non-deleted contributions of !1029qpwoalskzmxn (talk · contribs). His IP (76.69.90.142 (talk · contribs)) has similar edits as well as the account Studentsrulendestroywiki (talk · contribs). It might be worth comparing to the IP you reported. --auburnpilot talk 01:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

tks for the tips. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rlevse. You have new messages at Dank's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:FLCs

Hey. I'll see what I can do. As it happens, I have two FLCs running as well. Nice to be back actually improving Wikipedia! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Edward "Porky" Cragg and Ernest T Cragg articles

Good afternoon Rlevse

Thank you for your comments about the two articles. I have been reading up on proper citations and want to revise both articles.

With respect to the "Porky" article" I do have some questions.

• I have a two-page type written biography which I copied at the The US Army Center of Military History down at Ft McNair here in DC. Since it is not available online anywhere, how should I reference it in a way that is verifiable?
• Aabout 10 years before he died I sat my dad down with both of my sons with a video camera and conducted/recorded a 75 minute oral history with him. What would be an appropriate way to reference that interview.

Those two references are my primary sources for information about "Porky" during his time before joining the 80th Tactical Fighter Squadron and for the "comment" column on his aerial victory table.

I look forward to hearing from you

ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecragg (talk • contribs) 20:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the first one is only two pages, I'd just scan them into wikicommons (make a same named account there); then you can transcribe them to wikisource. If these are Army docs, they'd be public domain. I'll ask about the video thing. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Afternoon

A related question - I am starting to inline cite the articles. I have not been able to find a template to easily make ibid. and op cit footnotes. Does such an animal exist?

ed

Ecragg (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The easiest way to do refs is to go to your preferences tab, gadgets tab, under "editing gadgets", turn on reftools. Then when in edit mode you'll see a menu. For books, click books, newspapers click news, web pages click web etc. For a FA that used lots of book cites (in "hybrid" mode, but there are other ways) see William D. Boyce. Browse through WP:FA to see other other FAs that used books. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Morning again. Thanks for the instructions. I have spent some time in line citing the first couple of paragraphs in Ernest T. Cragg If you have time would you look at it? My concern is that I might be overdoing it.

ed Ecragg (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You are not overdoing it. In fact, try to have one ref per paragraph. Refs go after punctuation (I fixed several). Format of refs 6 and 7 is wrong. When done, work on the intro/lead. It should be a summary of the article and if well done will need few, if any, refs. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My day

Thank you! I'm not sure just what I did to deserve it! *Dan T.* (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

...for fixing it. Much appreciated. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi/Folantin

Hi. User:Moreschi and User:Folantin are the same person. A CHECKUSER will prove that; of course, they may come up with stories of the kind of one being the husband or wife of the other etc. Regards. 91.121.82.48 (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Got any evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not just that they're always editing the same articles. It's also that when Moreschi says something/nominates an article for deletion/makes a statement in an ArbCom case etc, Folantin is almost always there to chime in with "Yeah, what he said!". If you look at the articles that Moreschi has nominated for deletion, there's almost always a Folantin "delete" vote. 91.121.82.48 (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL Judging by the French IP, I think I can guess which "husband and wife" (so to speak) team this is. No, they don't have any evidence, since none exists. --Folantin (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note that Moreschi has apparently been very, very thorough in his scheming. Consider that his first edits as his sock were eight days before those of his main account. He was also clever enough to maintain fairly steady editing patterns from both accounts for more than three years without attracting attention to either of them. I have never seen anyone with his skill in separating writing style, diction, interests, and the like enough to throw potential whistle-blowers off his track for such a long time. Clearly, he and his sockfarm should be blocked immediately, as it can't be long until this evil genius unleashes his master plan. </sarcasm> J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a fair cop. The next stage in my master plan was to semi-retire my admin sock account (Moreschi) in 2009 and keep my non-admin account going so I could destroy Wikipedia from the inside using my evil powers such as, er, rollback. But now I've been rumbled. --Folantin (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am Folantin. And Moreschi. And Jimbo Wales is our wife. Checkuser will reveal this as shocking fact! --dab (𒁳) 08:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• This whole thread is comprised of my soks; I have two steward accounts, three 'crat accounts, and a quarter of the AC seats. No CUs will confirm this because I told them not to. I have the God-King tied up in a closet. I can use any IP I like; this was on 0.0.0.0 — Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm Spartacus. --Folantin (talk) 09:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Jack, I know for a fact that only I have access to 256.256.256.256. Oh, and I'm actually Jacob Peters. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• And, yes, I can use invalid IPs, too; see above. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Miliary Academy Alumni pages

I wanted to let you know that I created a new topic for the Medal of Honor and added the 2 Alumni (Military academy and Naval academy) as lists in it.--Kumioko (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking Implementation notes errors

Hi Rleves. Please see my post here. Thanks, Paul August ☎ 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixing now. Many things have changed since I did that and yes I may have goofed a few. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied to you

Just wanted to let you know that I've replied to your (to me, at least) rather startling comment on my talk page with a question I'd like you to answer if you could. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied again, just so you know. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Rlevse

I just wanted to let you know I love your userbox that says you speak American, not English. :) Do you have any theories as to why there are so many Brits editing Wikipedia? Timmeh!_{(review me)} 20:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

They do speak English, you know, and colonized a huge part of the world. ;-) Now, if they'd only learn to spell correctly ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 21:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But America's better than the rest of the world, or at least it is now that Bush is gone. :P And even back then, there were still some of them that liked us, regardless of our spelling differences. :) Timmeh!_{(review me)} 22:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Scnote

I got tired of the way {{cnote}} looks and created {{scnote}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Documentation updated— difference between cnote and scnote near the bottom of the page.

Interesting. Do you want to update the Eagle list? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Teach your grandma to suck eggs.

Done, and List of recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award‎. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 01:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

U iz sew fun e. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Question re: Macedonia 2

Hi Rlevse,

I'm not sure you're paying much attention to the talk page of the Macedonia 2 decision, but even if you are I'm sure it's easy to lose track of things in the flood of posts to that page. So I'd like to ask you to take a look at the question I ask about admin involvement in this section: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Macedonia_2/Proposed_decision#Am_I_.22involved.22.3F. Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I watching it alright. And yes, it's hard to keep up with all that's going on there. Will respond to that question. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I appreciate it. I have a few concerns with the wording of the remedy; I'll try to articulate them on the Macedonia 2 talk page later, when I'm less sleepy. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So?

I left a response to you on my talk page. So, I am wondering, is there going to be "balance" in the "warnings" here, and is WP:TALK going to be followed, or not? 6SJ7 (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I have archived my talk page, including the discussion in question, and am on what the handy template calls a "semi-wikibreak", whatever that is. Ironically, I was trying to support what the ArbCom did, a mistake I'll try not to make again. All it got me were personal attacks on the proposed decision/talk page, and I don't see the attacking admins (plural) getting any warnings. I've learned my lesson. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I-P issues at ARBMAC2

G'day, Rlevse. Sorry to bug you, but we're getting some rather off-topic tit-for-tat discussion related (as far as I can tell) to Israel-Palestine disputes at the talk page for the proposed decision, starting here and continuing here (the user says he's not brought up any such issues, which may be true, but in the same edit discusses the issue with Tarc). If you're agreeable, I'd like to see this nipped in the bud, perhaps by removing those comments (and mine, since it wouldn't make sense) and/or instructing people not to bring in other disputes? Obviously, no amount of "clerking" I might theoretically try to do could be viewed as neutral, so I think I've done all I can here. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for going off-tangent Rlevse, but it may be an elephant in the room that needs acknowledging. FPaS and ChrisO were 2 of the 3 who did the legwork for the CAMERA case, and a certain segment of the editor population still seethes over it. Civility should always be one of our primary goals here, and I said as much in a statement for the ScienceApologist case, but there is a problem with how we, and admins, are able to deal with the patient, polite-on-the-surface wiki-lawyers during editing disputes. As more of these cases and decisions comes down, I am concerned about the future and the willingness of administrators to dive in to hot-button topics if they feel they are going to be out on a limb someday. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: Happy Garden's Day!

Thank you very much Rlevse! It's a great honour for me... thanks! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Referees

So, how and when will the referee panel for the further Macedonia process be nominated? Should we start the discussion process on our own or would you prefer for us to wait with creating the process until the referees are in place to oversee it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're talking about Wikipedia:ARBMAC2#Establishing_consensus_on_names, if not, please advise. The opening of the discussion should ideally be done by the community, not arbcom. Arbcom will appoint the panel of uninvolved admins towards the end. The discussion could be in several forums but my personal suggestion is RFC. Whatever form it takes, if you want to initiate it, that'd be fine. I've put a note in my Outlook calendar to remind to seek out admins for the panel before the discussion closes. Wherever this discussion starts, please drop a link here. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will do. I think we will probably need something a bit more structured than a single RfC, that's why I thought it would be maybe preferable to have the panel in action already to oversee the creation of the infrastructure (like in the Ireland case, I think), and that was also the opinion of some people on the PD talk page the other day. But I'll see what we can hammer out. Probably on some page in the tradition of good old "MOSMAC". Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good place too. I'll announce it at AN and to arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Actually, I already announced it at AN (just below the Arbcom conclusion notice), at the "regional conflicts" noticeboard, and at the Greece and Macedonia articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you like, please check out {{Uw-1rrMac}}, a user warning template designed to enforce the topic-1RR, to see if it captures the intent of the ruling. We haven't yet worked out a tag template for the article talk pages, but I thought a user page tag might actually be more effective. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks okay to me as policy does say common name and term used by a country itself get preference. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm afraid I'm already finding a need for clarification of the decision here. The 1RR remedy as currently worded says that only those edits are exempt from 1RR where the editor is "enforcing a case where a binding #Stalemate resolution has been found". However, I'm pretty certain you didn't mean just those decisions reached by "stalemate resolution", but also those decisions that are based on existing project-wide consensus reached in some other way, right? For instance, the deprecation of abbreviated "FYROM" is something that we didn't need stalemate resolution for, it's always been consensus (so much so that you have even called for a mechanical blocking out of such edits through the Abuse Filter), so surely its manual enforcement by reverts should have the same exempt status? (It turns out that both I and a Greek editor would otherwise already be in violation of the rule, because we both – together! – reverted a bunch of tagteam IPs on Alexander sarcophagus, in confidence that we were enforcing existing consensus. Apologies if that was not what you meant, and please don't block the Greek guy for trying to be fair and reverting for "our" side.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that was a sound common sense way to handle it and interpret the ruling. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

RFAR/OA

Thanks. -Stevertigo 14:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XIX and XX

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 22:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.

could you help please?

I was trying to close the thread down at wt:rfa.... could you please help with the technicals? — Ched :  ?  02:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You already closed it. That should do it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)