User talk:Rlevse/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Indefinite wikibreak

Is everything OK? Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Dude... what's going on? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy your time off! Hope everything is well, and you come back soon. :) iMatthew ^talk at  01:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any FLCs or other featured/good candidates you'd like me to watch while you're away? iMatthew ^talk at  01:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish you all the best and I hope you will return. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 01:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Hey, we need you back here soon, so indefinite better mean really small period of time :P MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just agreeing with those above. I've sent you an e-mail. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I hope that all is well with you. AGK 10:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hope everything is well. Please don't stay away long! SoWhy 10:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Brother, I know you do this periodically; come back refreshed! :) Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Take care, Rlevse. Be at peace, and return soon! Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXIII

Delivered by –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC).

Eagle Scout list

why was my edit removed on the Eagle scout list.

all my images are copywritten, factual and all the statementments are true? Inteligencja (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement

As many of you know, I need a wikibreak from time to time. This one was 5 days. Many thanks to all who offered their support an encouragement. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As ever, good to see you back and hope all is well. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine. Thanks for asking. Part of what I did was review what I think of the roles of various wiki entities/users/etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds boring, yet at the same time scintillating. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Any conclusions? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Discover how much simple wiki sucks? :) iMatthew ^talk at 19:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If I ever edited simple wiki, it was only to seal my SUL account. Some of what I was pondering is quite interesting, but I'm not finalized my thoughts so spilling it now would be premature. But I will say my view on one major issue has changed. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, only edit there was creating your userpage. In any event, welcome back! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I now have 3 edits there by updating my user page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Very glad to see you back. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 20:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC))

Just agreeing with those above, again. Nice to have you back. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support - per Rjd0060. Glad you're back :D J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Woot! ++ Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rose Eldred GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Arthur Rose Eldred for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Already saw it, will work it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Good job addressing the issues so quickly. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Boyce Building

I was going to take some pictures today and found my camera is out of order (again). It also seems that my extended warranty company may be out of business. I have to do some more checking tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Thanks for trying. Let me know if it works out. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

huh?

I don't know what you mean by the message you left on my talk page, namely "You have failed to respond to my queries. You need to contact myself or arbom immediately." What message do you mean? I have received no queries from you at all. Does it have something to do with this? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Re on your talk page, keep it there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ping

See e-mail. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, just saw your response. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiholic

And you know you're a chemistry nerd when you see "wikihol" and try to work out its chemical structure. —harej (talk) (cool!) 01:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Good one, adding it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ayutthaya Kingdom

Sorry for the late reply. I have been an inactive Wikipedian for a while since no job. I will see if I can do to improve Ayutthaya Kingdom article. I will ask Thai Wikipedians as well to see if they can make significant contributes.

Thank you for your word too. --Manop - TH (talk) 18:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Awesome Wikipedian"

Thanks very much Rlevse! It's been properly immortalized on my user page. =) Steven Walling (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

funny you should say that....

re this:

We should all quit arbcom, then the community can fix everything themselves and can't bitch at us. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

funny you should mention that, as I was just about to post over at Casliber's page with a similar sort of idea. I'm sure you're aware that your seats on the committee are held open if you decide just to 'leave' the committee (wikibreak, whatever - a la newyorkbrad, coren, etc. etc.) - it might be a bit political for your tastes, but if you are indeed a bit disgusted at the vibe / treatment at the 'management' end of the project, a resignation would be a strong statement....

either ways... interesting times.. hope you're well. Privatemusings (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm SERIOUSLY considering. And arbcom should resign enmasse. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I reckon you should quit in a heartbeat if you're either no longer finding value in your contributions (enjoying it, having fun, finding it rewarding etc.) or if you you feel that the overhead in making your positive contribution is too high a price (too much shit, not enough beer - that sort of thing) - either ways, best wishes in your decision making. Privatemusings (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Do not bait him.--Caspian blue 22:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh god no... :-( J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I wont' matter one bit. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you're elected by the community, so please reconsider the decision.--Caspian blue 22:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't matter, we won't urge you to reconsider. You should not resign over anything like this, you really shouldn't... Regards SoWhy 22:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully Rlevse, I think this is dumb. You can't coerce the community into acceptance of that which they do not want. Arbcom is a thankless task for which you will make no friends and plenty of enemies, but I'd hope the people that run for it know that, and put it aside for the greater good. I hope you will continue to do so and reconsider. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to volunteer to be in front the constant firing squad and take nothing but crap for trying to do good, go right ahead. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally admit to some criticism, but I didn't think there was any "firing". I (not important) and many, many others (very important) respect you highly, Rlevse, please reconsider. After all, part of Arbitration is that it deals with contentiousness in its finest state. Perhaps you should take a break for a couple weeks? ceranthor 01:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

First and foremost, take care of yourself. You are a volunteer, do what you need to do... if that means stepping down do so and don't worry about the masses. Take care of yourself. You are the best, but I'd rather have the best sane and happy than burnt out. GL my friend.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You

You might be interested in the comments at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#Inappropriate_contact_by_banned_or_current_users. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I may not get to this til tomorrow. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If I haven't responded 24 hrs from now and you still want me to look at it, post here to remind me. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Responded there. I need an answer. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVII

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Hello again

Back after a long absence.

Thanks again for all your help with Harry Truman.

I have set my sights on getting Qur'an up to FA status, and would appreciate any advice you can offer on that score. BYT (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup

Hey R, just noticed you hadn't signed up for next year's WikiCup, here. Is it because you didn't know about it, or you don't plan on signing up? Cheers, iMatthew ^talk at 19:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

didn't know. I didn't do so good this year. Signed up anyway. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

USNA

Thank you for letting me know. As a new user, I have lots to learn. By the way, does my reply here get to you, or do I need to post it on your talk page? I will copy it to your talk page, in case you don't automatically get my reply. Eagle4000 (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You did post it on my talk page. You get a big yellow notice when you get a new post on your talkpage. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

merge histories

Hi brother, recently I've been seeing article histories merged, not just article-b-gets-pasted-into-article-a, but actually where all edit history for both articles is preserved. Do you know what I am talking about? That's pretty cool. How do we do that? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

See User:Rlevse/Tools#History_merges, but you need admin rights to do it. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, shikata ga nai then, unless you can help. Brian just posted 8, it's a sound idea and works the same as US Scouting in Micronesia, Palau... Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tidewater Council IFD

FYI, in case you want to offer your opinion. Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_4#File:Tidewater_Council_logo.png. --B (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

eh. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope I'm not bothering you.

Hi, I hope I'm not bothering you with this, but I would like to nominate user:Hunter Kahn to receive his/her own day. On your userpage there is a link to your email-adress, but I'm unable to send you an e-mail at the moment (computer trouble, working from laptop, yada yada yada, I'm not going to bother you with that as well). Anyhow, I take it you don't want to receive wikipedia day nominations here, but Kahn really deserves his/her own day for his/her contribs, so please don't be mad at me? Thank you.--Music26/11 13:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page or email is fine, not a big deal. I'll add him/her to my long list of future recipients. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Thekohser

I noticed that you issued Thekohser with a final warning over edit summaries. I have just come across this person and noticed that all of today's edits such as this have exactly the same unhelpful edit summary of "I love Wikipedia with all my soul, and I pledge allegiance to the ArbCom". Do not know any background to this case but looks like a block may be in order. Keith D (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

FayssalF has already indef'd him. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Something tells me that ain't going to do any good for his board candidacy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Logo is now proposed for deletion.

Hi Randy, you may want to hear of this: [1]. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

Hey Wim! Hmm. I think it's a losing battle, unfortunately. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I said as much in my comment to the deletion proposal. Oh, well.... Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC).

Banning Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th)

For it is I. I do not want to sound rude, but do you actually read the background of edits before blocking people? I'm tired and I really don't have the energy to go into this, but as you can see the 7ths acount is around 3 years old, without ever a warning. The TM article is an espcially difficult one - which would have been obvious if you h read it in detail. My first edit, was an attempt to move forward a stalemate position and the secomd also - the second was also agreed by the very person that I assume raised this an issue!As to Threatening - have you seen how many times i have been "threatened" and indeed as to edit waring, again, have you looked at what users had done the most reversals, alterations and why?

Also, you should also have noticed that the article is already being monitored by two admins and that certain users are already reviewed under COI!

As you can see, it is easy for me to circumnavigate IP blocks yet I have not - and will not edit again, till the end of your block. (As you can see if I had really wanted to sockpuppet, it would have been very easy for me to have done so. LB is not a sockpuppet, but clearley identifed on the Tm page as being the 7ths "alter ego" again, if you had read she was produced as a joke response to the patriarchal, generalized language of certain users ion the page. This was explicit

Can I ask you to review this situation in perhaps a little more detail.

I have left a message on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Will_Beback

As the 7thdr. Perhaps this will help a little.

Namaste Meyouandhim (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if one agrees to the "alt ego" argument, the account was still edit warring, threatening people, and personal attacks. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

AH, and you're the same guy, how sweet ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assessment of the situation. The initial block of LF f/k/a 7th was claimed to be for violation of 3RR, which was absolutely baseless, as she had two reverts, not three, and there was no attempt to use a sockpuppet to avoid the limit. Then, when this got pointed out, the rationale suddenly changes. LF fka/a 7th wasn't edit warring, but implementing the suggestion of an independent, disinterested admin, WillBeback, who got involved in the article and its discussion in order to try to enforce COI rules against editors who refused to abide by them. The charge of threats and personal attacks are nonsense. All the threats and personal attacks have come from the other direction.Fladrif (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

ORLY? What do you call these threats and and these personal attacks? If you have issues with other users, substantiate them with diffs. Also not Shell did the indef's and main user block, not me, and Will agreed there was edit warring. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Who's ORLY? No, those are neither threats nor personal attacks. And, if you want diffs and evidence of other users abusing this article, start | editor refuses to comply with COI and | sockpppet/meatpuppet 76.76.etc.Fladrif (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I've taken up these points here and here Fladrif (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an appropriate step if you still have concerns about other editors in this situation. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

GA-review of Black Hawk War

I have begun the GA review of Black Hawk War that you nominated. I have placed the article on hold since its failure to follow WP:LEAD is a problem that could prompt quickfail if not remedied. The lead would need to be expanded to provide a summary of all the relevant information in the article - not just as it does not provide a definition of the term. When the lead is fixed I will begin to dig deeper into the details of the review.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Assistance

Hi Rlevse, This is a concern about UserName: Fladrif, and the Transcendental Meditation article. I know you currently have some involvement there and have had some recent contact with this user so I am posting my concern here. If this is the wrong procedure or you are the wrong Admin to approach please correct me. The issue is personal attacks despite requests from fellow editors to cease. There are many examples but here are four instances from just one day (August 6th):

• Pay attention and quit crying over versions of the article that have long been superseded. And I might ask, 76.76 etc... what exactly is your connection to MUM and the rest of the TM Org there in beautiful downtown Fairfield from whence you're posting? Single purpose editors. Love 'em.Fladrif (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC) [[2]]
• And, there is plenty of concensus outside the TM Cabal to take a meataxe to this article. Now, aren't you late for a bunnyhopping session? [[3]]
• Who? You, KBob and 76.76 from beautiful downtown Fairfield? That's three. Or maybe two, because I haven't decided whether 76.76 is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet or both, and I'm not sure whether he/she/it counts at all.m [[4]]
• Oh wait, I forgot Luke. And now BWB. I suppose that uncreated and LFE will weigh in soon to express their horror. I kinda think that all of you put together really only adds up to one vote as far as I;m concerned [[5]]

Thank you for any help you can give.--Kbob (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Warned. He may file counterclaims and if there's evidence for them, will handle accordingly on both sides. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fair. Thanks for your speedy response.--Kbob (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #8

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #8. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know.

--User:Nbahn 04:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd-WMC case

Hi Rlevse. You apparently did not participate when this ArbCom case was requested here nor have you since recused. The page-bans were backed by the community on WP:ANI. User:Heimstern wrote that all he was doing was summarising what had happened when he closed the thread and has written as much here.[6][7] [8] I think it would be hard to determine how long the page-ban was for. I also don't think that is was "voluntary" as you suggest, since it was immediately contested (see the evidence section of the ArbCom case); nor did Abd indicate anywhere publicly (for example on a noticeboard) what he was doing when apparently he decided it was no longer in place. Surely it is for the community to decide this. If you read the evidence or the workshop more carefully you can dig out the chronology/locations of the page-bans. I mention them here [9] in response to one of Fritzpoll's proposals. I hope this hepls clarify some matters. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if one accepts all that, and as Heimstern confirmed it was for a month that is not for sure clear it's as you state, WMC's block of Abd is way out of line. I agree Abd would have better posted the unban publicly. Thanks for info and I'll look at it, but I think you have to agree WMC is way too involved with Abd to be blocking him, and certainly not in an ongoing arbcase named after the two of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, the whole case is complicated. In exchanges between WMC and Abd on their talk pages the page-ban might have become indefinite. Unfortunately I only retain data like this as a vague memory [like bizarre computer commands :)] I haven't said anything for sure because it usually takes 5 or 10 minutes to dig through the page histories to work out what actually what went on. That's probably why Fritzpoll's suggestions on the workshop page are potentially very useful. Personally I think Abd's decision at this stage to start editing the talk page of cold fusion was extremely provocative. WMC's reaction was predictable. I agree that both these actions during the ArbCom case could and should have been avoided. It is an almighty mess and will not make this case any easier. There is far too much drama and this detracts actually from the fundamental problems which presumably the case is trying to address. Perhaps you yourself acted a little too hastily, before you had found out all the details. Please could you clarify whether you are recused or not? I hope this gets sorted out. If I dig up diffs for the Abd/WMC interactions, I'll post them here. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd claims that WMC is involved. Other than that, and that WMC has blocked him, I see no involvement. Is WMC no longer allowed to block me because he has blocked me in the past? Or is it only if I complain about it to ANI? Or ArbCom? If WMC complains about your action will you no longer be able to block him? Very poor. Verbal chat 14:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact they're both the two primary parties in an ongoing arb case makes them involved. The rest we can argue about later. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The arb case follows the ban. I think you jumped in a bit too soon here. So, to get the ban reaffirmed (again) do we need to take it to ANI (again) since you've taken charge? Verbal chat 15:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Heimstern confirmed it was one month, so it seems there is confusion among the admins following this case. See the same link to that posted here by Mathsci and by another party on Abd's page. Did Heimstern ever say it was over one month? Did anyone ever say it was over a month in contradiction to Heimstern prior to today? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If you feel this is to do with the arbcom case then why didn't you raise it there rather than take action yourself, while admitting you are confused? The "confusion" around the ban has been manufactured by Abd (see the evidence), and the ANI thread was closed at his request when he agreed to the ban. The initial ban notification isn't too hard to find. Verbal chat 15:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I was confused, I said the admins following it are. Mathsci even says it's confusing. That Heimstern confirmed it was only one month is clear. That WMC made an involved block is also clear. I agree it was unwise for Abd to edit CF and I'll tell him that. Where'd the idea I'm recused come from? Just because I don't make a vote on the RFAR request doesn't mean I'm recused. I don't recall any significant or involved actions with either WMC or Abd. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you've added evidence that would seem to put you in a conflicted position. I really think you've dropped the ball here. Shame. Verbal chat 15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd's style is to perform breaching experiments. You just handed him a slam-dunk, flat-out victory which shows him the benefit from doing so. Nice work. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So does WMC. Are you saying it's okay for a named party in a case to block the other named party? I also just told Abd to stay away from CF article and talk. Interesting no one can show a contradiction to Heimstern's one month confirmation. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And when he performs his next breaching experiment there, what will you do? Stamp your foot? Type in uppercase? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm does not help your case and is very unbecoming of you. I have no axe to gring on either side of this case, despite what some may think. Short, Mathsci, Verbal, I suggest you all get Heimstern, who seems to uninvolved to weigh in on the ban and why it'd still be in effect after he clearly said it was for one month only. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why put it all on one admin? Why not take it to the community, which is how things around here are supposed to work (and what was asked for in the first place). All you've done is make a mess messier and given the appearance of prejudgement and partisanship. Not very becoming in an arbiter, but it seems that is the precedent of the office. Verbal chat 15:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

WMC brought into arb realm with the block today. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It wasn't sarcasm, it was a question. Which I notice you declined to answer. What will you do? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It was sarcasm and you know it. Currently I've rebanned Abd. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So you've re-enacted WMCs ban of Abd? You better make that clear or there might be "confusion". Verbal chat 15:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll reenact it till I hear from Heimstern. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So now you've made to bans: until the case is over, and until you've heard from another admin. Verbal chat 15:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll sort it out in the end. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And I'm confident you will, Rlevse. Above and below, you can quite clearly see what I've faced. My position has never been that administrators cannot ban; a ban is a generalized warning that any edits to a page may be considered disruptive. In this case, my editing CF pages may be considered disruptive because a substantial segment of editors (all what I've called "cabal") will object to it, revert it, etc., as has happened now (edit warring has begun on CF Talk over the restoration and removal of my edit, with Verbal threatening more) Verbal is claiming that the edit could be removed because I'm now banned by you. Fascinating. Retroactive bans. My jaw drops at this collection of editors asserting that the problem is I don't listen to criticism, and then they pull this! Anyway, sorry for this comment, if it's inappropriate, you may delete it if it's too much, I would take no offense at all. I will not test your quite reasonable ban, in spite of the claims.

To make it clear, "disruptive" is not equivalent to "made with disruptive intent." There is an open case where it is contended that my editing of cold fusion was disruptive; and to judge this may require a complex determination of balance. I might suggest, in fact, that other editors whose work on cold fusion might likewise be considered disruptive and might also be enjoined from editing the page pending resolution; specifically, this would include Enric Naval and Verbal, given that they were willing to edit war over a harmless comment in Talk. --Abd (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, first you state that WMC can't make a ban on their own when thats the core element of this case and then you follow up by stateing that you will ban Abd from Cold Fusion. Your posting to WMC's talk page is clearly OTT and I strongly urge you to recuse from this case now you have given evidence. You are clearly now involved and the good name of the arbitratio committee requires you to recuse. There are enough uninvolved abriters to deal with this from now on. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Of course he is not involved. It is obviously the ArbCom's responsibility to make sure that the involved parties of the case don't go around committing the same errors during the case that broght them to arbitration in the first place. Block's and block threats is the only means to do this with. If a party to an arbitration case thinks it is in order to ban his opponent during the case something drastical needs to be done to show him that it is not.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Block not ban. And many ofg us do consider Abd to be banned from Cold Fusion. Rlevse seems confused on the point but surely we can't expect arbiters to be clear about their actions before acting rashly should we? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd-WMC exchange

Rlevse, here is the final exchange between Abd and WMC [10]:

“

Please reduce the ban to 30 days from the article only, and recuse yourself from further administrative involvement, and please notify Hipocrite of the ban, if you have not already done so. You hadn't last I looked. --Abd (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I decline your request. I am happy to note that portions of the ban correspond to a voluntary agreement. Whilst I anticipate it lasting approximately one month, the period remains indefinite. Since the page is now unprotected, the version I chnaged it to under protection is now moot William M. Connolley (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

”

My memory was not at fault here. Mathsci (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So WMC, who's involved BTW, contradicts Heimstern. But note Heimstern's post is dated five days later hmm — Rlevse • Talk • 15:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Could we get some kind of clarification about when WMC hit "involved" status? I ask because the case wasn't even a request at the time this ban clarification was made and it didn't seem that there was any interaction with Abd or the article prior. Shell ^babelfish 16:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Shell- def once the case was opened. One primary named party taking action against another primary named party in an open ongoing arbitration case where they have a history with one another is the epitome of being involved. Prior to that I'm sure we all could argue and wikilawyer with varying degrees of agreement proportionate to how long ago each specific event was until the sun burns out. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Rlevse, Heimstern was summarising what he had understood from the discussion on ANI as shown by the diffs I provided. Various users including User:EdChem and User:Enric Naval requested that he clarify his summary which he did bit by bit. There's no point in being overly bureaucratic when there are no very clear guidelines for this kind of page-ban. WMC was involved only after the page-ban, so I don't agree with your line of reasoning there. Unless you're suggesting that once a page-ban has been enacted by an admin, he should not be the admin who blocks for violations. What happens with Arbitration Enforcement blocks? This case could clarify all these points and provide better procedures for this kind of ban (cf Fritzpoll's proposals on the workshop page mentioned in my unanswered post in the section above). Hope this helps, Mathsci (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record here is what Heimstern said on July 19 when quizzed by Abd about the page bans [11]:

“ I am releasing all responsibility for this ban at this point, as I never intended to take on any responsibility for it at all. I believed myself to be making a purely procedural close of a discussion; in that belief it appears I was mistaken. It appears ArbCom will likely handle this, so I imagine it shouldn't be a problem for me not to get further involved in this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC) ”

This is at odds with Rlevse's statements about Heimstern's role in the page-bans. He was the messenger for a garbled message. Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I've replied on my talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Your ban of Abd

Per [12], can you please clearly state your basis for instituting such a ban? The community ban has long expired. This is undeniable. So what ban are you "re-enacting" and on what grounds? --GoRight (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take discussion to the case pages

Guys, Rlevse is well within his rights to step in here. Two parties to a case should not continue the matter under dispute in the case. They should stop and submit evidence and comments at the case pages until the matter is resolved. WMC should not have blocked Abd, and equally Abd should not have resumed posting to the talk page of the cold fusion page. It's simple common sense. Furthermore, Rlevse's talk page is not the right place to be having these discussions. Please, everyone take the discussion to the case talk pages. Carcharoth (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Surely this is the right place to demand that Rlevse recuses from thuis case. No? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

My sole comments in this thread (this and one below): there is no place to "demand" that an arbitrator recuse, except by motion before the committee itself. Arbitrators make their own judgments on that, and quite properly so. If an arbitrator had an outrageous involvement and failed to recuse, ArbComm would swiftly deal with it, I'm sure. My edit to Talk cold fusion may or may not have been wise, but it also may have broken a logjam. I can say for myself that I feel a lot better, but I do regret the current edit warring and intransigent positions expressed at Talk:Cold fusion. I knew I might be blocked, that was obvious, but that these editors would actually edit war, in the full view of the community that is now awake to the problem, on the Talk page, I did not anticipate at all. --Abd (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Rlevse explicitly requested diffs that he hadn't had time to find himself on how the ban was enacted and ratified. Otherwise I am in agreement with you about both Abd and WMC (see my second post above). WMC seems to have gone out for the afternoon - I hope he took an umbrella. Mathsci (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Rlevse shouldn't be acting on the basis that the ban was invalid if they haven't verified that themselves and checked the diffs. That is extremely shoddy and an abuse of their exulted position. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Relevse has not taken a position that the ban was invalid. I assume that is the reason he rebanned me, to make that argument moot, to avoid disruption by useless debate when the matter is already before the Commmittee. Rather, he confirmed what I'd thought all along should be abundantly clear: WMC could not enforce his ban by blocking me, due to obvious and blatant involvement in dispute. This can be wikilawyered six ways till Sunday about "what if editors claim dispute in order to avoid being blocked" but that surely does not apply in this case. Being adverse parties in an ArbComm case is about as much proof as one could imagine. --Abd (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    • In an ideal world none of this would have happened. In an ideal world Abd would not have felt compelled to perform a breaching experiment. In that same ideal world WMC would have gotten another admin to do the block. And in our ideal world Rlevse would have informed himself of the background of the case before coming on so strongly. Of those three things -- an editor testing the limits, an admin doing an iffy block, and an uninformed arbitrator helicoptering in to lay down the law -- one strikes me as more damaging to Wikipedia than the other two. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      • If you are going to insist on discussing things here, may I point out that the editor and admin are likely solely focused on this case. Arbitrators have lots of things they are working on at the same time. There is only one case at the moment, but there are lots of amendments and clarifications being considered at the same time, and various ban appeals and sanctions being discussed. Sure, in an ideal world, Rlevse would have taken more time over this, but I'm not going to shout at him about it, and I doubt any other arbitrators will as well. Ideally, a clerk would have stepped in to sort this out, but the case clerk is away at the moment. Rlevse stepped into prevent things getting out of control, and I continue to endorse his actions here. If you want my views on this, please see here. And now can everyone here please move to that page and discuss things there? Carcharoth (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement

WMC and Abd are the two primary named parties in this case, which is still open and they have a history with one another. This makes them involved to a high degree. Therefore one taking an admin action against another should not have happened. That makes WMC's block of Abd an involved block and honestly, I'm amazed anyone thinks otherwise. As for Adb, he clearly should not have edited the Cold fusion page simply because he knew it'd cause lots of drama. Mathsci admits "I think it would be hard to determine how long the page-ban was for" so that there's confusion on the issue and disagreement amongst the parties is understandable (cf the case evidence page). As Carcharoth says, I could have taken more time on this esp in regards to my initial statements to Abd but I was stepping in as no clerk was immediately around and it is ArbCom's responsibility to make sure that the involved parties of the case don't go around committing the same errors during the case that brought them to arbitration in the first place. If a party to an arbitration case thinks it is in order for him to ban and/or block his opponent during the case something is drastically wrong and it needs to be dealt with promptly. The CF page ban is a core of this case and to prevent further drama I've explicitly banned Abd from the CF article and it's talk page for the duration of the case. If the final decision rules on that, that'll take precedence, otherwise the page ban would then be in the communitie’s purview. There are other arb cases where arbs presented evidence on the evidence page (or PD talk page) and did not recuse (dates delinking, Aitias, and Geogre-WMC as three examples. I posted the evidence about the block to ensure it was documented and then in three editing sessions made a timeline of the events that led up to it so that all users could use it as a chronological reference. Prior to this case I can not recall any significant involvement with either Abd nor WMC. Furthermore, I have no axe to grind with either side. So the question becomes "does today's event in me trying to maintain order on the arb case and trying to document it mean I should recuse?". I do not think so. I have not used my admin bit. I was attempting to restore order, and ensure that both parties stepped away from the cliff. I could have posted this chronological evidence on the PD talk page and no one would have thought anything of it as this has been done many times before by other arbs, such as in the Scientology case. But instead I decided to post it on the evidence page and built a chronology with date and time stamps there because I thought the timing very important. I built this all from diffs supplied by users on both sides of the issue from various case pages and talk pages. Arbs often put something together like this in order to make the issues clearer to them. I do not think that in this instance it requires me to recuse. Note: posting on my own talk page and the case PD talk page. Respectfully to all, — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither WMC nor Abd have covered themselves in glory in this incident. FWIW, I completely support Rlevse's actions towards both sides here Fritzpoll (talk) 06:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Your message

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

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 [13], 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 [14] 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)

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)

Ah, ok, thank you, will update it. Feel free to comment here again. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for asking and then listening. I appreciate it. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sure no problem. I was just curious. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Will look but can't get to it for several hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think it's going anywhere soon. :D (I smile, but....) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

←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)

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)

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)

Thank you very much! He's also edited here: [15]. 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)

@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)

Will do. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

• Special story: Tropenmuseum to host partnered exhibit with Wikimedia community
• News and notes: Tech news, strategic planning, BLP task force, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Shrinking community, GLAM-Wiki, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

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

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).

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)

You both deserve it. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Bigweeboy

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

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)

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

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. [16] 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)

I'll ask my coder to look at it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(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)

Investigating: If you check this diff, it appears the subst was not properly substituted. Plastikspork (talk) 01:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

I'll give it a whirl. Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 02:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Evidence on Connolley arbcom

Have you considered adding this to your time line?

Cold fusion is fully protected on 1 June 2009. [17] On 5 June 2009, William Connolley edits Cold fusion reverting to May 14 version.[18] 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)

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

Thanks!

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

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 [19][20], article texts [21], article pipe links [22], disambiguation terms [23] 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 [24], [25], 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 [26]. 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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

my day

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

WikiCup Newsletter XXVIII

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

Wikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

• From the editor: Where should the Signpost go from here?
• Radio review: Review of Bigipedia radio series
• News and notes: Three million articles, Chen, Walsh and Klein win board election, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Reports of Wikipedia's imminent death greatly exaggerated, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

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

Thanks!

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

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)

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)

Okay, will do so. Thanks.

Rapturerider (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks!

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

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)

Jake RFA

It looks to me like I was only a minute early, going by the acceptance time at [27]? 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)

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

Email

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

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)

Same editor in another GA article called Jaffna kingdom as well. Taprobanus (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Warned. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

My day

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

Thanks!

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

1938 hurricane

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

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)

Wikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

• News and notes: $500,000 grant, Wikimania, Wikipedia Loves Art winners
• Wikipedia in the news: Health care coverage, 3 million articles, inkblots, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

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

Return of an inappropriate gift

Some while ago, no doubt kindly intentioned, you gave me this [28]. It now becomes clear that your judgement is faulty; for me [29] 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)

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)

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)

• • 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)

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)

FYI

• Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review#Non-free_files SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

No problem, you deserve it. I have a long list of people ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you. --Rockstone (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Oversight

You are listed on Special:ListUsers/suppress, 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)

That is not oversightable, see WP:OS but is vandalism that is blockable as he is showing a pattern. Blocked 48 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A name, address and telephone number isn't oversightable? Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not see that, can you give a diff instead of an old whole version? I saw crude sex edits. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I linked the version, not the diff: [30], but it's on subsequent edits, which is why I think you might want to look at this IPs contribs to this page. There's only four. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if I missed one. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you very much. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both for the swift action. I don't think I am being presumptuous in advising yngvarr to in the future perhaps make these requests via email rather than a public place such as here. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to you

I would like to personally apologize to you for my personal attack against you. It was uncalled for and was very unfortunate. I completely take it back without reservations. I would also like to apologize for the unfortunate experience we've had at the J.B. article. Feel free to remove the disputed template, because, as far as I'm concerned, there is no more a dispute. I agree with you on it.

God bless. Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

thank you for taking the time to say this. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. :) Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the WikiDay

Much appreciated! I've been distracted with Ramadan responsibilities the past month, but just saw this and wanted to express my gratitude for it. BYT (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

General thanks

		Wikipedia Motivation Award
		For your sustained efforts in recognizing Wikipedians, thereby fostering a sense of community and encouraging contributors in their efforts. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Truly, you rock. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

THANKS! — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

E-mail

I've just sent one. Thanks. Acalamari 23:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Acalamari 23:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Happy Labor Day!

Dear colleague, I just want to wish you a happy, hopefully, extended holiday weekend and nice end to summer! Your friend, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and likewise. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A message to the Arbitration Committee

This message is being sent to all non-recused arbitrators.

I have sent a message to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment page, that mentions what I feel that I need to say to ArbCom before the ban takes effect.

The message is here.

Thank you. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Note

Sorry for the delay in completing your request; I've been busy for the past week or so, but should be able to get it done tomorrow. Cross-posted to a few talk pages. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Boyce Building

File:20090909 Boyce Building.JPG.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure about the address. [31], [32] and [33] all disagree. 500 or 510 north sound correct. Click on the image to see where else it is used.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Hawk

Is probably ready for FAC, I think. The prose looks great overall, and a quick fact/source check didn't turn up any issues. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could have made a few formatting tweaks, but there's really nothing of any significance I saw fit to change. This one should get through FAC with no problem. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw the outcome of the FA review of the Black Hawk War. Some time ago I decided to forego trying to reach FA. As Maunus indicated, it's a crap shoot and is highly dependent upon who is reviewing it. In my experience, the more well-known the subject matter, the more difficult it is. Thanks for your efforts, Madman (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You're totally right, it is a crap shoot and totally dependent on what reviewers you get. The last two were bogus as they were biased to one book and one of them biased to the Indian POV, I tried to present both sides. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A small present in return :D

Your topicons are now Vector skin compatible —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It means that users who are using the new Beta skin Vector, (or the modern skin actually), should now be able to enjoy your user icons as well. The older methods used to be monobook only, and have degrade 'ugly' for people with other skins. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you're banned....

"Actually, the user who banned HarveyCarter was himself banned soon after."

Strange that you're still editing - I guess you didn't get the memo ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

ROFL — Rlevse • Talk • 18:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXX

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 19:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

FLRC delegate election

Hi Rlevse! I'm just dropping by to let you know of the FLRC delegate election that begins on Tuesday. You may run in the election by following the instructions on the page. If you don't wish to run, please come and vote sometime next week! The election starts Tuesday and ends Saturday. For more information, check out the opening section of the page. Cheers, iMatthew ^talk at 19:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Advice Please

May I beg a moment of your time.

Recently a Spanish editor came to the English wikipedia, editing the Falklands War articles with an edit that was wholly inappropriate (it was extremely one sided, partisan and failed NPOV). Essentially the edit involved repeating a series of wild allegations that the British had committed war crimes in the Falklands War.

I noted that the same editor had introduced the same material on the Spanish wikipedia, so I removed it. He of course chose to re-insert the same material. I did not edit war, I made one edit per day. The most I ever did was two, complete with edit summary that it failed NPOV.

An Argentine editor made a 3RR report naming me. An admin on the Spanish wikipedia, looked at it, reverted my edit, warning me that I was not to remove the material. In the intermediate period I had made a revert unaware of the warning. The warning was basically a threat. I responded, whilst I was blunt, I criticised the content not any of the editors. I was nontheless blocked for 48 hrs (first offence, of which I was not guilty). The block is entirely punitive, I had no intention of making any further reverts and was talking on the talk page.

I requested to be unblocked, noting the blocking admin was involved in the content dispute. My request was removed and my talk page edit protected so that I could not make a further unblock request. Not only that but the blocking admin has locked the page preventing any further edits, locking the page with biased and one sided material.

Now I find that the admin who did this put themselves forward as a candidate for the wiki foundation board. I think this is a clear example of the abuse of admin powers but face a language barrier not to mention feeling a little out gunned. What would you advise? Justin talk 21:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a military background and it has been my experience that war crimes are committed on all sides in all wars. But the issue here is abuse of admin responsibilities while being involved. I'd report this but I stay out of meta level stuff. User:MBisanz probably knows more of how this works. You also need a user who is experienced, can stay neutral, and is fluent in Spanish and English, try User:Spangineer. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Rlevse, Justin is not blocked anymore. However, I should say that thing are not exactly in the way he tells them, since although the actually didn't break the 3RR, he created an edit war consistently refusing to explain why he removes sourced information (instead of neutralizing it and balancing with the appropriate other-side information since, sadly, as you correctly point out, all sides commit that kind of crimes) and that does be a reason to get blocked. Best regars --Ecemaml (talk) 23:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What about his claim you're involved in this? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Rlevse, just to clarify. Justin is "accusing" Góngora. He's not me (I'm another administrator in the Spanish Wikipedia). With regard to Góngora's involvement in the issue, I just see an innocent involvement. Here Gongora reverts the reversion by Justin. Mind that he hadn't editted such an article ever and that his reversion is just a consequence of the alert by César (see dates). You can find that Góngora's answer and subsequent reversion to Justin means that Góngora is involved in the edit war but such kind of "involvement" (ex post) is not considered inappropriate in the Spanish wikipedia (although could be possibly handled in a more proper way). I mean, Góngora didn't take part in the article's edition until the alert in the administrators' board (you can see the history of any Falkland islands-related article and you won't find him in any way). Hope this verbose explanation helps (sorry for my poor English). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. All very interesting, but considering I don't speak Spanish, I'd have to rely on input of others. This is why I suggest neutral people who speak both languages try to sort this out. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree it is partly a misunderstanding on my part, in that I thought I'd been reported for 3RR when I didn't break 3RR. However, his block was excessive, heavy handed, his actions inflamed the situation. It is admin misconduct. And for the record I am not accusing, I asked for advice. As regards the edit, as I have noted on the English wikipedia it is deliberately biased and one sided. I removed material that was using wikipedia as a soap box. I would suggest we do not bother Rlevse anymore. Justin talk 00:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with Justin in not bothering Rlevse with our transwiki disagreements and quarrels. However, since I was mentioned and some of my actions have been misunderstood and questioned, here is my statement and my personal explanation of how things happened. Finally, here I asked Justin to assume good faith and not to take things personally. Regards, --Góngora (Talk) 02:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you guys work it out. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

You helped me with a very common sense approach this summer about a 300 year old painting being in the public domain. I'd like you to take a common sense approach and on commons look at the category "Pictures of the male nude by James Wielson" I've been told by the Assistant Grand Poohbah that this isn't what it appears to be. That was actually my second strike. Well this is my last try, but to me it seems so obvious! Smallbones (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm dense on this one. What do you mean? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

EdChem Day

Hi Rlevse, thanks for the "EdChem Day" - I'm honoured. I'm also a little surprised, and am curious as to what made you think of me for recognition. Best, EdChem (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Good work on wiki with little or no drama. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks :) Much appreciated. EdChem (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal Day

Dear Rlevse, thank you so much for this honor. As you probably guessed, my last little while here has been quite frustrating and just a lot of little things had kept adding up to make me very disillusioned. I guess the straw that really broke the camel's back was recently, I've felt that some essential policies were broken to allow for a wider influence of personal sentiments, and that had certainly not sat well with me. And when you don't feel much or any support, you start to believe that you're in the wrong somehow and maybe you don't belong anymore. Anyhow, this has made me feel a lot better, not so much because I feel anything I do needs "recognition", but more because I really needed something to disperse my feelings of alienation and reconnect me with the community, and this really does it. Anyhow, I think that's enough of a failed attempt to make sense and show appreciation upon waking up to a pleasant surprise, so I'd best get back to contributing. Thanks again! :) Cheers, CP 15:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, you deserve the award. And yes, wiki can be very frustrating. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Londo06

Hi. You were helpful in removing a serial sockpuppeteer User:Londo06 last year. Now he's back as User:Lando09. I was wondering if you knew what to do about this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Londo06/Archive. I'm at a loss.--Jeff79 (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the CUs will handle it. I left a note they can contact me. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Two Wiki editor accounts from the same IP

I am on Wiki and my wife also wants to join but we have the same IP address. Is it OK for us to be Wiking from the different accounts with the same IP? Any guidance would be most appreciated. Hickorybark (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but to avoid problems, I suggest two things:

1. See my user page and User:JoJo, we declare our relationship on them.
2. Nothing says you can't edit the same articles, etc, but to avoid problems, do so as little as possible. See my contribs and JoJo's contribs, we have totally different edit histories. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.Hickorybark (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

• From the editor: Call for opinion pieces
• News and notes: Footnotes updated, WMF office and jobs, Strategic Planning and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wales everywhere, participation statistics, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Video games
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Graham87's day

Thanks very much for that - what a nice surprise! :-) Graham87 02:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I was wondering, why did you make that paste from your talk page to the J.B. article (about our old argument) when the issue has already been settled? Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Two reasons: it's confirmation from someone who actually heard what Barbera said - which makes it an important point, and to try to consolidate it into one page history to reduce the searching people have to do. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Kamau Kambon

How do I get the (10:04, 1 December 2008 Bob Waller (talk | contribs) moved Kamau Kambon ... (Ġŏt ĤΑĠĞÊR？) (revert)) comment removed from the deletion history of this article? ‎It seems improper to leave a vandalistic smear there in view. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Got a diff? I can't find the diff you're talking about. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he's talking about this log action. AFAIK, the only way to remove that would be to oversight it, but I'm not sure it qualifies. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not oversightable, just crude vandalism. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the day! Apologies for being a grump over the past few months. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello there Rlevse! I noticed this edit summary and wanted to relate why that happens. The ACW task force requests that the ref/source section goes before the notes/cite section in its articles, in particular the biography ones. The TF asks here and here (under People). They both link to User:Hlj/CWediting and on it here is the section ordering. This style, whether it exactly meets the WP MOS or not, has been in use since at least '06 if not before, and it also is the style I use when writing the bios. To directly answer your question, most of the ACW pages are either originated by or cared for primarily by Hal Jespersen. From time to time other editors have swapped the sections, and I did not think it worth reverting due to that alone, a lousy reason in my opinion. To me the order ref-then-cite makes much more sense because it lists the sources used in writing the article, then it lists each individual note based on those refs. I personally will continue to use this system until I'm reverted/scolded/blocked/whatever for it. I also did not like the tone of the edit summary you used, but if no offense was intended then none recieved. Good day! Kresock (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

See his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for the kind recognition you left on my user page. It was a pleasant surprise. Means a lot to me. Many thanks for making my day!--XLR8TION (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

goldbergproductions

I have created an account Goldberg133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for this user and counseled her regarding conflict of interest. Fred Talk 04:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I sent you an email

Citizen-of-wiki 15:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Makerbot

Please observe that the hangon says that "the page may still be deleted if the page unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria". In what way is it possible that "A company that makes machines that make things." and an external link not unquestionably meet the criteria? I deleted under A7, but there's no more content here than "He is a funny man with a red car. He makes people laugh". Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, where do you get the idea that the time that we should consider giving should be an hour? I've never seen any discussion of how long should be granted, whether longer or shorter than an hour. Nyttend (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that the time given should be longer than that which was provided. My second edit followed my first by less than a minute and was conflicted by your delete. HyperCapitalist (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

When someone says he needs and hour and has the material needed, he should be given that chance. An hour is not unreasonable. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User

Hello, my English is limited. Can you solve this problem?: Wikipedia:Changing username/Unfulfilled/2008/October#Vadellcesar → Cêsar. My account in use is User:Cêsar, my previous account to my SUL unification is User:Vadellcesar. I hope that both accounts are consolidated. Thanks for your attention and excuse my bad English. My main account is: es:Usuario:Cêsar. Greetings.Cêsar (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that it is impossible to merge edits from two different accounts into one account and you have been using en.Cêsar for some time. If you want to keep using en.Cêsar then simply join it to your SUL account. If you want the edits from Vadellcesar to be part of your SUL account, then I can rename your en.Cêsar to en.CêsarOLD and then Vadellcesar to en.Cêsar. Which do you want to do? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

• Opinion essay: White Barbarian
• Localisation improvements: LocalisationUpdate has gone live
• Office hours: Sue Gardner answers questions from community
• News and notes: Vibber resigns, Staff office hours, Flagged Revs, new research and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Stunting of growth, Polanski protected and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Register of Historic Places
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)