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 Yngvarr (talk | contribs) at 21:20, 3 September 2009 (→‎Oversight: new section). 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

Your message

Thanks for your message. I'll take a look. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a chance to take a first look at your chronology.
It still seems quite inaccurate to say that Heimsterm issued the ban. It was a community confirmation of WMC's ban. The rest of the chronology seems almost correct. You don't mention the interchange between User:Enric Naval, User:EdChem and Heimstern, where "topic ban" had to be changed to "page-ban". Looking at the archived ANI discussion [1], no length is mentioned in the final summary of Heimstern, only what had been enacted by the "discussion/straw poll/whatever it was" there. Enric Naval makes it clear at the start that the page-ban "was for an indefinite period and not just for a month, pending their behaviour in this mediation process". Of the editors who endorsed the page ban (many wrote "topic ban") only two mentioned one month. So again I don't think the length was an issue on ANI, just the confirmation that WMC's initiative of a page-ban was a sensible way to proceed. WMC did not participate in the discussion. There subsequently was no formal communication between Heimstern and WMC about how things were to proceed after the ANI discussion. Following Abd's violation of the page-ban and subsequent block, WMC explained in this edit [2] that the conditions of the page ban remained the same (indefinite subject to review) and that he considered that the ANI discussion the community had given its approval to his course of action, This seems unambiguous. In these circumstances it's simply wrong to write that Heimstern issued the ban. He did not. He archived the discussion on ANI and eventually gave some form of summary, after interacting with other editors. Mathsci (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that I had no intention of issuing any ban; only of closing a discussion that seemed to me to affirm an existing one. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, thank you, will update it. Feel free to comment here again. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for asking and then listening. I appreciate it. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm just trying to get an accurate timeline and grip on it here. I have no axe to grind on either side. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the case pages off my watchlist, but saw this. Heimstern closed the ban discussion and stated the outcome as a satisfaction of my request, and on his Talk page, in response to a specific request from Enric Naval, he stated the term of the ban as one month. Those are just facts, and I depended for my subsequent behavior on those facts. Half the point of my asking for a speedy close was to convert WMC's involved ban into a community ban with a non-involved closer, who could make such decisions as term, as uninvolved. Heimstern conducted himself quite properly. Not being involved, he did not, indeed, understand all the aspects, though it's hard to understand if he was surprised that this went to ArbComm, for that was stated as likely in my request. But it was not likely from his close, but rather from WMC's insistence that he remained firmly in control. It should all be moot, because ArbComm should either establish a ban, with its own conditions, terms, and process, or not. I rather doubt that ArbComm will want to affirm a ban to be monitored and controlled by WMC, which would be the substance of the claim that the community approved every detail of WMC's ban; my position is that individual administrators handling bans should be rigorously neutral; administrative bans are invitations for personal disputes to form even if they did not previously exist, when they are insisted upon as an immovable decision and enforced with rigorous strictness. A community ban can be listed on WP:RESTRICT so that it is enforced by any administrator, not just a single one, and lifting a community ban requires non-individual process if there is no expiration specified. Heimstern, I assume, would not have confirmed a ban that was simply an "affirmation" of WMC's right to unilaterally determine my editorial future. "Editor is banned until administrator X decides he may return." I don't think so. A community ban is either indef or it has a fixed term. Heimstern read the discussion and took the sense of it as affirming a one-month ban, and that was reasonable.
I had stated to Heimstern, when Enric Naval asked, that he did not need to immediately decide, but that if he was going to decide on more than a month, I'd want to present additional evidence and arguments for his consideration. In other words, I was fully accepting a one-month ban; more than that, I'd need to do more work. I was treating him as a closing administrator should be treated, with respect and with an understanding of the responsibilities of close. He went ahead and decided, "one month," and Enric Naval, the one who had filed the ban discussion request, clearly accepted that (in direct response), and WMC did not object, nor did anyone else object to the term at that time. Claims that this term was invalid only arose later, and elsewhere.
Now, I must let go of all this. If you have any questions, Rlevse, please ask on my Talk, or email me. I'm taking your user page off my watchlist, so I'm not tempted to answer again. Thanks for your help and attention. --Abd (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy

I asked for you to deal with the problem, and it was archived without it being dealt with, despite a promise it would be. Shall I resend you the e-mails where the arbcom promised to deal with the situation? You've taken a gross attack on me, which I asked for the Arbcom to look at and make sure it was withdrawn, and, after agreeing I had a point, did nothing and let it stand and be permanently archived.

Seriously, what am I supposed to do? *Bain's statement is a blatant distortion of the facts. Arbcom say they're going to deal with it, but let it stand and achive it instead. Arbcom promised to deal with it. When it isn't dealt with, and I simply mark it, you yell at me Shoemaker's Holiday Over 187 FCs served 02:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did I (as opposed to the arbcom that decided the case) make a "gross attack" on you? You know I haven't. It seems like no matter what we do, you continue to complain. We get repeated requests from you and know full well no matter what we do we'll get another. The procedure in the case may not have been perfect, but the final end result was valid. It's time to let it go and move on. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I was referring to Stephen Bain, with you meaning Arbcom, not you personally. I'm a bit upset at the moment, given Risker has just claimed he voted in the Matthew Hoffman withdrawal, not because he felt that the statement hasd any merit, but to try and get me to shut up. This is not helping my view of Arbcom to be very high at the moment, and I would stronglyhope this attitude is not widespread, because it's incredibly unethical. Seriously, Risker thinks it right that I was desysoped and hounded off Wikipedia over one sort-of-bad block, with community review that found it fine, and me unblocking as soon as I understood the problems? Given that I had to drop out of university over the stress from that case, and have only partially returned since, you might understand that I find it very hard to trust Arbcom again, and each problem and poor-handling on Arbcom's part is, perhaps, magnified a great deal. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 187 FCs served 02:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To make it clear: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARisker&diff=307086867&oldid=307086654 - Risker brings up the Hoffman case, apparently just to troll me. And if you think that's abotu the Homeopathy case: I wasn't sanctioned, or even mentioned in the Homeopathy final decision. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 187 FCs served 04:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hawk War GAR

I was carried away by other subjects today, and tomorrow I will not have much time to edit. Possibly I will get time to conduct the full review on wednesday. I hope you can wait till then. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure no problem. I was just curious. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to give it my best efforts so I'll set off a full half day for the reviewing process I guess. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have concluded the review early, I hope you can use my comments and that you don't disagree with too much of it. There's not really any formatting/MOS problems I just had some comments to include a little more of the background and a little more of the consequences - particularly in relation to the Indian perspective.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI sock question

Hi.

There's a complex combo situation at ANI, suspected copyright infringer with maybe some socking (and maybe not). The person who opened the section is not an English Wiki regular, but evidently hangs out at the Armenian WP. I've been working on the copyright side of things, since that's where I hang out with my mop, but I have done practically nothing with socks. As it develops, though, it's looking more likely to me that sock allegations are plausible. User:Luk did a checkuser which could not exclude or confirm socking, though both registered accounts work in the same region (see his note at my talk) User:PeterSymonds, an SPI clerk, thought socking seemed likely based on behavioral evidence (his comprehensive notes, here, at his talk. Peter suggested a temporary block of the suspected main account and a permanent one of the copyright infringing secondary one (need a Commons admin to help with that). But I'm not that confident in sockland, so am hesitant to hit the block button. Luk suggested that a second check-user might be beneficial in case he's missed anything.

Meanwhile, I've been checking images uploaded by the established account and have found some additional issues that I plan to list at PUF. Nothing definitive, but there is at least suggestion that he was at one point adding images to his personal website so that he could "verify" permission (see, for example, File:Azerbaijan map.gif, which traced back to a PD source.

I'm hoping that you can help out here, either by finding that thing Luk suggested he might have missed or just adding to a consensus handling. The ANI regulars seem to be shying away from this one, maybe because it's long. Can you help? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will look but can't get to it for several hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't think it's going anywhere soon. :D (I smile, but....) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fabulous! You're just all kinds of multitalented. :D It has to do with the suspected sock and whether or not he's going to verify permission for the images on commons and what ought to be done about him there if he doesn't (which would suggest he has deliberately registered a fake username there to facilitate copyright infringement). I'll leave you a note there if I don't see anything further develop to suggest he's legit. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your help with this. Now I guess it's just a matter of waiting to see if OTRS clearance shows up for the images on Commons and, if not, indefinitely blocking the sock there. In spite of the many hours I've logged at copyvio, it still kind of shocks me to imagine a contributor going to such lengths to violate somebody else's copyright. I'm used to seeing people disregarding them, but not (presuming this is true) committing actual identity fraud. Wow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

←Sorry to harass you again, but knowing (now) that you have tools on both projects, would you be able to take another look? The contributor has located another problematic account that he believes may be a sock of the first. In any case, it seems that this new account has introduced some copyrighted images to Commons. I can tag them there, of course, but am not entirely sure the best way to proceed. Would you recommend a mass deletion discussion? Or should I tag each for speedy deletion? I've had limited involvement at Commons and am not entirely sure of the protocol. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my misleading edit summary. This so isn't a reply. :) I sometimes type that on talk page edit summaries in auto pilot. (Oh, and p.s., he left me a personal note about this at my talk page as well as the ANI note; I responded to him there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can look several hours from now. I'm not a CU on commons but know people that are. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! He's also edited here: [3]. I don't know if he's edited enough for CU, because I am ignorant of the ways of this magic you do. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@MRG: Rlevse asked me to look on Commons but I'm not quite sure what I'm looking for, can you email me a precis of what is in need of determination? I hold CU here and there if needed. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 02:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VanWeesp's edits are too old to CU. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) I've left you a note about various matters at Commons. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lankiveil Day

Many thanks for the nice message. Anything in particular I've done to get your attention, or have you just run out of more qualified candidates? =p. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I was selected in April, much to my surprise. I'm still so thankful Rlevse thinks I'm awesome. :p And Lankiveil, you've done plenty to be awesome. For example, a practically unanimous RfA... ceranthor 12:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You both deserve it. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bigweeboy

Thanks for correction grammar on my home page. --BwB (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar, I was completely not expecting one for my contributions to the Scouting WikiProject. It really shows that WikiGnomes are appreciated. -MBK004 22:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You earned it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Day template

Hello, R! I've noticed a small problem with your Day template; when I copied it into my award closet, it looked as if you were giving my award closet its own day, instead of me. [4] Back when I used to do the "today" thing (here), this template never had any problem in its recipients' subpages, perhaps you could see if you could nick some code from it?

And thanks again for giving me my own Day! Regards, Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 11:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask my coder to look at it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(comment from a TPS) It appears the problem is that the 'subst' did not happen until after you copied it to your Barnstar page. There are a couple fixes, one would be to make sure the subst happens when the award is first given. The other would be to use something other than {{PAGENAME}} which would return the user's name, rather than the page name, like say {{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}|1|1}} which renders as Rlevse. I hope this helps. Plastikspork (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Investigating: If you check this diff, it appears the subst was not properly substituted. Plastikspork (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I hope you don't mind, but I made two changes to User:Rlevse/Today, which should allow you to use {{subst:User:Rlevse/Today}} on someone's talk page to give the award. Feel free to revert my changes if this isn't what you had in mind. Thanks. Plastikspork (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a whirl. Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 02:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I guess most of this happened while I was asleep. I've peeked at Plastikspork's changes and they make sense to me (although #titleparts: is a new one for me;). You status says sleeping, so I guess I just missed you. I'll look for you giving it a whirl tomorrow and we'll see how things go. Anyone with an already subst'd copy of this that's been moved to a subpage will have to manually fix things up (which is rather standard fare.) Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

parent categories

Thank you for your messages about not putting an article under a parent category. I have noticed, however, that various articles are under parent categories. For example, the United States Naval Academy article is under the following four categories (among others):

Category:United States Naval Academy;

Category:Naval academies;

Category:Military academies of the United States;

Category:Military education and training in the United States.

The "Category:Military education and training in the United States", though, is a parent of "Category:Military academies of the United States". Thus, under the no-parent-category rule, shouldn't the "Military education and training in the US" parent category be deleted from the USNA page? I'm trying to understand this rule (among the many rules of Wikipedia). I hope you can help me understand the no-parent-category rule. Thank you. Eagle4000 (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learning wiki is like having a learner's permit. I was there once too. You are new and trying to learn and do the right thing--that's what's important. If you want to be literal, all categories are subcats of Category:Categories. The "parent rule" is mainly meant for subcats that are only 1-2 levels down from a parent, so the alumni/grads one is definitely affected by the parent rule. You can also have two cats under a grandparent or higher cat if they branch down different branches of the grandparent cat. Yes, it's confusing and there is some common sense involved. But if you avoid an immediate parent/child (like alum/grads) you should not get rv'd too often. So yes, "Category:Military education and training in the United States" should get rm'd if "Military academies of the United States" also is there in an article. If you have more questions, let me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's a great analogy, to learner's permits. I'll try to keep the parent/grandparent "rule" in mind. Eagle4000 (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence on Connolley arbcom

Have you considered adding this to your time line?

Cold fusion is fully protected on 1 June 2009. [5] On 5 June 2009, William Connolley edits Cold fusion reverting to May 14 version.[6] Connolley wrote: "Lets wind everyone up"

you have the clearest time line, so that is why I ask.

Ikip (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are important points, so I added it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks!

For making my day!·Maunus·ƛ· 03:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Troubles arbitration case and the term Northern Irish

Hi Rlevse, I notice you were particularly active in the Troubles case. I have an issue with VintageKits, see User_talk:Vintagekits#Systematic_erasure_of_the_term_Northern_Irish_from_Wikipedia. He has been in my opinion, over-reaching one specific Category discussion which renamed a category Northern Irish people to People from Northern Irleand, but which clearly stated it was not a precedent, and has been applying that decision (he provided other examples that to me show no consensus) to make various changes of the term Northern Irish to Northern Ireland, on the Troubles related basis of the fact it is a potentially POV term, changing article titles [7][8], article texts [9], article pipe links [10], disambiguation terms [11] etc etc. Some of these go way beyond the issue of the specific Category nationality discussion, and are plain and simple systematic edits. That ordinarily is fine with clear consensus, such as a Manual of Style or other broad instrument, but nothing of the sort exists, and I severely doubt he is not acting without an agenda - I am sure you are aware of his past practices, and I am sure you can see the contradiction in him making these sorts of edits [12], [13], when compared to the Northern Irish ones. So, with the prior case and these contradictions, my AGF is low. However, what caps it off, is that he, and two other parties to that case, BigDunc and MooreTwim are edit warring over it [14]. I disagree with VK's assertion that he has consensus, and I am genuinely motivated to start a content type Rfc, but this evidence puts me in no mood to start anything like a content Rfc, and I see these edits, while not to the level of campaigning, and certainly not the worst of his recent behaviour, will continue without one. So, I want to know, is the Troubles case sufficient to have either the term, or these editors, put under 1RR restrictions, to allow a proper content discussion to commence? Should I be request enforcement, or an amendment? Or is it just a lost cause? MickMacNee (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"an issue with VintageKits" - there is no issue with me the issue it with the use of the term "Northern Irish" which is a term to be avoided. I will agree to 1RR if pretty much the whole of wikipedia is also. There is no case for me being singled out like this just because you disagree with my position - which is the standing consensus position. If you are not happy with the standing consensus please open a discussion on a relevant forum and I will be happy to sit down and rationally discuss it. It is not I that is causing any edit war - the facts bare out that Mooretwin (your cohort) is the one causing the edit war and editing against consensus. There is a discussion on the NI Project and there are a multitude of CfD's which bare this out.
My advice to you would be to stop throwing around baseless - yes baseless - accusations.
I really do hope you start a RfC, in fact I urge you to, because you will find out that it falls flat on its arse due to a lack of evidence. You and your POV can try and find some consensus instead of barracking me on my talkpage. Good day.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting down to some facts! Only a small minority of people from NI describe themselves as Northern Irish! It can imply sectarian allegancy and is a politically loaded POV term, so please explain why you wouldnt want to use a more neutral term such of "of Northern Ireland" or "from Northern Ireland".
To describe someone as "Northern Irish" is POV and potentially BLP - to describe them as "from Northern Ireland" to purely factual. In light of this one must question why it is that you wish to force this label upon people and instituations when it is systematically avoided by most including the Good Friday Agreement.
Rlevse, this, this and this will shed further light on why it such a contenious term to use. The mind boogles!
Mick, are you saying that it is not a POV term?--Vintagekits (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, nobody describes themselves as "Northern Irish"; that would be WP:OR. Depending on political views they will describe themselves as "Irish" or, in the case of many British nationalists (Unionists) "British". There was a time British nationalists called themselves "Ulstermen" but that seems to be falling out of use. Sarah777 (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will have to wait. I'm swamped in RL the next few days. Not sure when I can get to this. Maybe today maybe not. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys, but that's rubbish. As per VK's link, 29% of people describe themselves as Northern Irish, 3% more than Irish. The surveys show that this is not original research. If Northern Irish is a POV term, so is Irish, British, or any other identity. And if the term is used by "loyalist hatemongers", to quote another contributor to the debate, why do 25% of Catholics identify as Northern Irish? Stu ’Bout ye! 11:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even accepting the validity of the survey, that means 71% of the people of Northern Ireland don't describe themselves as "Northern Irish"! Sarah777 (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does! I would work the percentages for not being Irish and British, but I can't find my calculator :-) You can look at the figures any way you want, but either way the claim that "no one" or "a small minority" consider themselves Northern Irish is false. Personally, I'm not saying we have to use the term Northern Irish everywhere, but the reasons for VK's universal removal of it are not valid. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't argue with that! Interesting that the under 34s (I know the limitations of these polls) seem more inclined to use "Northern Irish" and even just "Irish" than old folk like ourselves :) Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do I get the impression nothing ever changes regarding the Irish articles and editors? Why can't people just get along? This has all the earmarks of another arb case and as a sitting arb I'd have to recuse if I got involved. My prior involvement really wasn't all that significant. I suggest you all try harder to work this out. See how the Greeks/non Greek editors resolved the naming dispute after WP:ARBMAC2. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For whatever it's worth, Rlevse, I've mentioned to the participants that I think it would be good if a refereed discussion similar to the one after ArbMac2 took place here. I can't see how a this straw poll will resolve anything (and isn't Wikipedia not a democracy, anyway?), and that refereed discussion seemed to really get things done well eventually. I can see that they're not going to want to change plans now, mind you. In terms of the contentiousness of all this, it is indeed looking a lot like another ArbMac2, and I think I know of what I speak. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes they should. Many of these editors have been problematic for a long time. People who can't get along in a consensus based environment for that period of time should find somewhere else to play on the Internet. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is not true that it is the "standing consensus position" that "Northern Irish" may not be used anywhere in Wikipedia. Mooretwin (talk) 11:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hawk War

I did a bit of copyediting, but it doesn't seem to require much work. I'll go over it again later to look for MoS issues and such. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my day

Thanks for the kind gesture! :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: USMA CSA list

Well, the template says "If this article has not been edited in several days, please remove this template", which was the case here. Generally, there's no need for such a tag when the article itself looks fine. I doubt anyone's going to nominate it for deletion or slap a clean-up tag on it. But if you want the expansion tag to be there, fine by me. --Conti|✉ 12:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a longer than normal effort. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making my day

Thanks very much for the recognition! You really made my day (pun intended, but it's true). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concord

Thanks for noticing! I spent quite some time at Concord, but have moved to new pastures not too long go. However, I go back and visit regularly. You were also there and took pictures of the campus! — CZmarlin (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thank you for the special day! A pleasant and unexpected surprise! — CZmarlin (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup Newsletter XXVIII

Delivered by –Juliancolton | Talk at 15:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

It was the best news I received today. Thanks again. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Preview of Updated Pic

Hi Rlevse

There seems to be a little problem with this file. I uploaded an updated version of it but it doesn't seem to make a new preview. It still shows the previous version. Is this a problem at my end? If not, what can be done about it? Should I upload it (yet) again? Could you take a look at it?

Thanks in advance

Rapturerider (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had this problem too sometimes and never figured it out. So I can't be much help. Try an image person, such as User:Gadget850. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do so. Thanks.

Rapturerider (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that the problem has been solved.

Rapturerider (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks

Thx for making my day as an awesome wikipedian on 17 Jul 09. Because of long absences and too many newsletters, I didnt notice it till today. I am really flattered.

AshLin (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mythdon proposal at ANI

This message is being sent to inform the Arbitration Committee of a sanction proposal forbidding me from editing Arbitration Committee pages and talk pages. Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mythdon and Arbitration Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False accusation of off-Wiki Harassment

You've crossed a line by making an absolutely baseless, unfounded and patently false accusation. I expect a retraction and demand an apology. I have never called any Wiki editor. The editor who claimed to have received harassing telephone calls should take the matter up with appropriate law enforcement authorities. I'm sure they will deal with them appropriately. But, they weren't from me.Fladrif (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say you called anyone. I said you ID'd (as in identified) their employer, ie, MUM. I did not mention phone calls at all, you did. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's this supposed to mean: "On a related note, I doubt your calling those you disagree with is helping."?Fladrif (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, a typing error. I'll go fix it. For the typing error I do apologize. I did not mean to imply you phoned someone. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the day! It was a very unexpected but pleasant surprise! — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks from me, too

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

IronDuke 21:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake RFA

It looks to me like I was only a minute early, going by the acceptance time at [15]? Or am I missing something? If I erred, I of course greatly regret that (and, at least, broke the second rule on your list, causing controversy that could have been avoidable). Incidentally, as regards why I closed in spite of Slim's concerns, if you like I can send you a copy of the email I sent her. -- Pakaran 23:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your email. -- Pakaran 00:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Email sent. NW (Talk) 02:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan Tamil people

Few editors are trying to removed cited information from a GA article please. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same editor in another GA article called Jaffna kingdom as well. Taprobanus (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Warned. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My day

Many thanks --Erp (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks brother, I needed that! Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1938 hurricane

Thanks for pointing that out. I added some of the info to the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See AN thread

You were a bureaucrat involved in the investigation of Landmark Education related socks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway. As such, I thought you should be aware of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_topic_ban_on_Landmark_Education_SPAs. Cirt (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Return of an inappropriate gift

Some while ago, no doubt kindly intentioned, you gave me this [16]. It now becomes clear that your judgement is faulty; for me [17] would serve as proof. Clearly the two are incompatible; I know which I consider an error but am obliged to assume that you believe the latter edit takes precedence over the former; hence I am returning the worthless bauble William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Barbera

I have removed Mr. Barbera's name from List of Lebanese people‎. I have provided a quote from Mr. Barbera's 1994 autobiography where he says he is Sicilian and his mother was born in Sicily. I also added a quote from Iwao Takamoto's (creator of Scooby Doo) autobiography (he was a close friend and colleague of Mr. Barbera) where again he mention's he is Sicilian. User Knight Prince - Sage Veritas refuses to accept the fact that he is Sicilian and keeps posting his name on the list when he doesn't qualify as he does not have Lebanese ancestry. I will remove the entry and I have provided valid and verifiable proof. I would like your input and like to request that user Knight Prince - Sage Veritas stop adding him to this list. I will remove the entry, PERIOD! Mr. Barbera's own words are more valid than Internet gossip.--XLR8TION (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, read my extensive comments on Barbera's talk. I read the whole autobio when I got it to FA. Knight got indef'd by JC today for calling me a racist. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for response. Regarding archiving I have never done it and don't know how to do it. If you have any tips or a link on how to do so, I will gladly proceed in archiving.--XLR8TION (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start it and you should be able to figure it out from there. If you have questions, ask. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Tks I'll consider the options. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note

Though I haven't been able to edit Wikipedia much over the last month, I really appreciate your message. Thank you. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you deserve it. I have a long list of people ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, I'll have a lot more to contribute after a long busy Summer that kept me from doing much over last month.  :) –BuickCenturyDriver 12:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbcom requesr

Is it possible to end the arbitration under wp:snow? I don't want to waste the time of Arbcom, and after I thought about it, I realized that this really doesn't need Arbitration. --Rockstone (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The requestor can withdraw the request pending at RFAR. I'll post in the clerk section and ask a clerk to close it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Rockstone (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight

You are listed on Special:Listusers/oversight, and it appears you're active ATM. Could you please review Hello Kitty, especially this. Unfortunately, that IP has added and removed it several times, so you might need to look at all the diffs starting forward from this one. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rlevse&oldid=311726865"