User talk:Rlevse/RlevseTalkArchive10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Bitless bridle

Hi. You mediated on Bitless bridle a month ago, and left off at the point of defining "bridle". That remains a point of contention and is impeding edits on several articles (eg, here). Would you mind returning for more? --Una Smith (talk) 03:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If those in that area haven't worked it out by now, I suggest taking it to WP:MEDIATION. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange Edit War

A group of editors have developed a version of an article [1] that meets all Wikipedia policies and standards. However, one editor keeps on reverting it to a version that he wrote months ago and refuses to discuss his changes on the talk page. [2] One group says that the other group are "sockpuppets." The other group says that the first group are "meatpuppets." Why can't someone read both articles a pick one article as a starting point from which to make further improvements? Please help 207.91.86.2 (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I have no idea how I got sucked into this article in the first place, but Dane Rauschenberg has to be the target of the most bizarre set of sockpuppetry I have ever seen, most of it aimed at including false and defamatory information regarding the subject. User:207.91.86.2 was part of one of the newer batches of sockpuppets, and his identity as a sockpuppet was confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Racepacket. After being outed, User:Racepacket created User:Runreston, also confirmed as a sockpuppet, and also blocked permanently. As soone as Runreston was blocked, Racepacket came out with a new set of IP addresses disrupting the article. There are no alternative "groups" here; There is a stable article and a single individual and his sockpuppets who have a monomaniacal obsession with this one individual and this one article, devoting well over 90% of edits to this one person. While I am working on documenting a new sockpuppet request for the latest crew of abusers, can you recommend any means to prevent further abuse, such as protecting the Dane Rauschenberg article from edits by IP addresses and new users? Alansohn (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I had left the first message for both you and Neil because of your past involvement with the article. I am pleased that Neil took constructive action. I wish to respectfully disagree with the above comments of User:Alansohn, who is the subject on a long-standing and on-going Request for Comment: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alansohn. In that request, his efforts to canvass and coordinate with ""Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )" came to light. They have obviously coordinated edits on the article to produce this version.
The history of this article was that it was written exclusively by its subject for many months, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Runnerguy, and the subject is still making comments on his article's discussion page. The article was proposed for deletion, which drew Alansohn to it as a test case of his all-inclusionist views. Later, the companion article Fiddy2 was proposed for deletion, and User:Neil presided over its merger with the main article.[3] Most of the edits to the article have been by Rauchenberg under his various usernames, followed by Alansohn and his cohort Norton. However, there is a group who appear to be running enthusiasts, who happen to live in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, who have also edited the article and produced this version. When editors disagree with Alansohn, he dismisses all of their concerns through personal attack. As you know, when checkusers show that they are distinct users, he argues with the result claiming that because the editors work civilly with each other, and disagree with him, they have to be the same person because they live in the same metropolitan area, although in different States. He confuses and misrepresents "likely" and "confirmed"[4] and he freely interchanges the usernames of the various parties involved.See fourth bullet
Between the Rauchenberg/Fiddy2/Revertedlebo/Runnerguy group and Alansohn/Norton/75.147.49.114 group, I think a major misrepresentation is being foisted on the public under the Wikipedia banner. This is a simple case of a gentleman using Wikipedia to burnish his resume while attempting a career change, with Alansohn not being able to see through the smoke. The actions of both groups have been highly disruptive. 207.91.86.2 (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As Dane Rauschenberg has already been prot'd, I see no need to intervene. I suggest this matter go to WP:DR as it's been going on for a very long time. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion request

Hi,

There seems to be a puzzling problem with an image I uploaded on March 28: (Image:Acela on Susquehanna Bridge.jpg).

The following day, I uploaded a revision which was intended to replace a different image. Immediately realizing my mistake, I reverted to the original March 28 version. The problem is that the incorrect version still displays on the Image page (but not in linked articles).

Can you please delete all versions but the original March 28 upload to straighten this out?

Thx, JGHowes talk - 17:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Try purging your cache. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
OK- that was odd. I reverted it again- let me know if this is correct now. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine now. Let Gadget850 or I know if you have more problems, being admins we both can help. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Thanks, JGHowes talk - 22:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Main page nomination for Manzanar

With the 39th Annual Manzanar Pilgrimage coming up on April 26, I have nominated Manzanar to be on Wikipedia's main page on that date. Please add your support for that at Today's featured article requests -- Gmatsuda (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The nomination was removed intially because there can only be five nominations on that page, but it's back, so if you are so incllined, please offer your support. Thanks! -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 14 31 March 2008 About the Signpost
Wikimania 2009 to be held in Buenos Aires Sister Projects Interview: Wikisource 
WikiWorld: "Hammerspace" News and notes: 10M articles, $500k donation, milestones 
Dispatches: Featured content overview WikiProject Report: Australia 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I did not see that user Nealirc used my photo. I took that photo last month. But thank you for letting me know. Plyjacks (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Deletion_advice_needed

Which one?

I've not yet found an answer for my question, and since you're an admin and have been around Wiki a while, you may be able to help me: which one of these pages is titled correctly (if either)? : List of minor Foundation universe characters and List of minor Foundation-universe planets? Thanks. —ScouterSig 15:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the main article is Foundation series, I would say without the hyphen. The two articles you listed need to be consistent in naming convention. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I just wasn't sure enough on my own. And the naming convention page wasn't much help. —ScouterSig 22:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Melungeon

To answer objections, I changed all the links to inline citations, because I think this deserves to be a featured article. Can you review and help advance it?--Parkwells (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and comments. It wasn't my article originally, but I'll see about improving it. It's an interesting topic and better sourced than many articles, although it can be improved.--Parkwells (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge

Hi Rlevse. The talk page for my ArbCom case seems a bit messed up, although it is possible that I am mistaken.[5] Mastcell made two separate requests at Arbcom this year, regarding myself, but the talk page for my Arbcom case does not seem to indicate that. For example, the talk page for my ArbCom case does not seem to include any statement by bainer or by James F. or by Matthew Brown (Morven), even though they all made statements in response to Mastcell's second request.

On 21 February, Mastcell wrote a "Request to clarify/expand remedy from Ferrylodge case". Here's the final version on 2 March at 04:01....

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=195257530#Request_to_clarify.2Fexpand_remedy_from_Ferrylodge_case

After that request was closed and archived, Mastcell made another separate request on 2 March at 18:55. His second request was titled "Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge". Here's the final version on 8 April at 04:03....

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and_motions&oldid=204146629#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FFerrylodge

Maybe I'm mistaken. Please let me know.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. I think I goofed it. I just tried to fix it. Let me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The following ArbCom proceeding seems to be missing from the talk page for my ArbCom case....
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=195257530#Request_to_clarify.2Fexpand_remedy_from_Ferrylodge_case
I'd be glad to fix this if I'm allowed to.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. I fixed it.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Admin Coachee

Hey!!! Just wanted to check in and see if you had anything for me to do, other than what I am doing now. Dustitalk to me 18:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I just logged in and see that quite a stir up has been made by myself. Where do I proceed from here? Dustitalk to me 16:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

In response to this question, I thought filing the SSP report was the way to do it? I must be confused. I've never filed a checkuser request before and do I just add the info from the sock case to a CU report? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RFCU and SSP can be in conjunction with each other; they are often complementary. One of RFCU's uses is in difficult SSP cases. File the case and list the suspects and evidence--you need enough to show probable cause for the RFCU. Do NOT copy all the debate that case has caused. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out the permissions

Image:SMT award.jpg. Don't think it's right ...--evrik (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. I fixed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Burbage

With your scouting hat on, would you please look at Special:Contributions/Thehollycroft and give him your opinion about his edits. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned up the Scout Association articles and started a discussion on their talk page. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I responded there too. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Metal discussion

It appears "common descency" isn't all that common, kind of like common sense. I'm rather flabbergasted by the discussion. I think as a result, I'll do a whole lot less vandal patrolling. Thanks for your comment. Toddst1 (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm Online

If you want to discuss anything or whatever, I'm online for a little bit. Dustitalk to me 18:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Boy Scouts

I don't need to discuss rectifying a blatant foundation-level violation - since when has the lowercase word controversy being used legitimately and without a point of view? Sceptre (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's commonly said that POV doesn't fail an FA, but references before a comma do. Besides, it was promoted two years ago - standards have changed since then. Sceptre (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Answer

Hi!, i answered here:[6] --Rembaoud (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, hi, I looked into the situation, and have cautioned both editors that they need to be engaging at talk rather than using "back and forth" edit summaries.[7][8] As far as I'm concerned, this is probably sufficient at this time, and no further admin action is required. Would you have any objections to closing the ANI thread?[9] --Elonka 04:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice work, go right ahead and close it. Thanks for helping. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

A New Sock of Soapfan91

Since you were the admin who blocked User:melbrooksfan101 as another sock of User:Soapfan91, I thought I'd let you know he seems to be back as User:Broadway91 (which is a similar name to another banned sock, User:Broadwayfan91). This user is has a similar editing pattern, and has edited the page of most recetn sock Melbrooksfan101 here [10]. He has gone so far as to set up an archive page for the banned sockpuppet here [11]. I appreciate your time, I thought I'd come to you first since you have prior experience with the situation. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Obvious sock, and he's being disruptive. I'll take care of it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sloppy editing

I broke the diff by trying to add the time and date, failed and then left part of it attached to the URL. Should be working fine now - thanks. John Smith's (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, does everyone have a right to respond with reports for arbitration enforcement? I notice that users such as Meowy are blocked automatically - as was Giovanni in the past. Or does it depend on how they are alleged to have broken arbitration remedies? John Smith's (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends on many factors. In your case, I'm waiting for him to respond because it looks like talk page discussion was going on during the second revert. 15:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok - so no talk page discussion makes it more likely to block? That makes sense. John Smith's (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely, it at least shows some effort toward consensus. See his arb restriction to, it specifically encourages talk page use. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, but it does also restrict him to one revert a week. I'm not saying he shouldn't be given a chance to self-revert, but he has been in this situation a number of times since the arbitration decision and wiggled out of it. I suppose my view is that if he always gets a chance to self-revert/explain away what he has done (provided he uses the talk page), the sanction loses its effectiveness. If he gets caught, he back-peddles - if he doesn't, he gets away with it. In either case his behaviour doesn't change.
Also I have just noticed that DHeyward pointed out Giovanni's breach of his revert parole. Giovanni replied but didn't self-revert, so you could say he has already had a chance. John Smith's (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to put this evidence at AE, not here. Copy to AE. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I did. Giovanni has said his piece. John Smith's (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring PHG

While I'd be more than happy to help out, I believe that since I was party to the discussions on Franco-Mongol alliance that eventually led to the Arb case, PHG is unlikely to see me as a neutral party. I'll leave a note on his talk page just in case I'm wrong about that. Shell babelfish 03:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This IP

Hey, this IP 139.222.127.101 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) is just vandalizing his talk page instead, maybe you want to protect it. KC109. 13:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC).

Removing warnings from your own talk page is actually allowed, it's considered proof you read it. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.

Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 15 7 April 2008 About the Signpost
April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins WikiWorld: "Apples and oranges" 
News and notes: 100 x 5,000, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Reviewers achieving excellence Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 16 14 April 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Interview with the team behind one of the 2,000th featured articles Image placeholders debated 
WikiWorld: "Pet skunk" News and notes: Board meeting, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Featured article milestone 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow up at WP:AN

Howdy - could you follow up on your original comment here? Thanks, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

Any tasks that you would like for me to do? Any questions or scenarios? Dustispeak and be heard! 18:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:1996-Rover Moot-Fahnengruß.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1996-Rover Moot-Fahnengruß.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for Deleted Page

Hello:

One of my pages was recently deleted. Can you please send me the deleted content? I had links attached to it that I need for my own records. The title of the page is "Black & Veatch's Dan McCarthy."

Thank you!

B&V WGCT (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Update

I have left an update at my AC coaching page. Dusticomplain/compliment 20:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you assist me in my archiving? I am having issues with the bot. I want to start archiving in my third list with all threads moved 2days old. Can you do this? Dusticomplain/compliment 18:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I never use the bot. Try asking someone who uses it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your block of User:BrianKarjala

Well, as he was impersonating a real life person, one that actually stated on this site to not trust anyone under that name or similar names. Anyway, I think something should be done about the above user's userpage. I don't know what, so I came here.— DædαlusT@lk / Improve 17:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, tagged and protected. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
If the user is an impersonator, the user page and talk page should probably be deleted and protected so that it won't show up in google hits. (If a prospective employer googles for your real life name, you probably don't want the top hit to be a page saying that you have been banned from Wikipedia.) Given enough time, it will work its way up to the top - I absolutely hate it that we allow indexing of user pages. --B (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll take care of it. Good idea. The talk seems to hold no personal info though, but the user page did. I've asked for oversight. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 17 21 April 2008 About the Signpost
BLP deletion rules discussed amidst controversial AFD Threat made against high school on Wikipedia, student arrested 
Global login, blocking features developed WikiWorld: "Disruptive technology" 
News and notes: Wikimania security, German print Wikipedia, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Monthly updates of styleguide and policy changes WikiProject Report: The Simpsons 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:KeikoMatsuiDreamWalk.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:KeikoMatsuiDreamWalk.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Adoption request

Um Can you adopt me? I went straight to the help page and it said adoption and I read that a person like you could mentor me. Can you please because I dont know what I am doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory E. Miller (talk • contribs) 20:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want me, yes. How did you find my name? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be great. How I found you is that I am interested in boyscouting and When I looked in the discution section, I found a lot of names and clicked on them. When I clicked on yours, I saw you had a lot of awards.(Gregory E. Miller (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

OK. Then join our project at: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/Members. I'm also an admin here on en.wiki and on wiki commons. I'll make a subpage of your userpage and set a watch on it. We can make discussions there. I'll post it on your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI

See [12]. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I intentionally worded the comments the way I did. Please in no way consider any of them a personal attack (personally, I think you do some great work on Wikipedia), but merely my general, though specific, disgust.
I don't intend to further comment in that discussion, but should there be a DRV discussion following, I would appreciate being notified. Thank you again for the notice. (And as before, feel free to remove this at your preference.) - jc37 00:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I find all this quite interesting, as I think you do some fine work too, yet we collide on xfd's and you have an inclusionist tag on your page and yet when we meet want to delete things. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Since reading your response, I've been torn between to polar opposites (which pretty much come down to "to respond"/"to not respond").
I really am not looking for a philosophical argument. But I do think it's fair to offer you at least the opportunity to understand my perspective.
This essay may help clarify my perspective. Though, if you would like to save time, it's this: When it comes to User categories, I prefer to follow the over-all consensus, and not the very few exceptions which those with a particular POV have pushed through due to IWANTMINE. And while I believe that there are legitimate exceptions to any set of rules or conventions, I strongly oppose double standards.
I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 20:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and as far as inclusionism. When it comes to information for the encyclopedia, I am. The more we can expand the depth and breadth of the encyclopedia, the better. But Wikipedians who like the colour blue? Or even: Wikipedians by merit badge? Or: Wikipedians by community service award? Please, add such information your userpage, if you wish. But a category grouping? No, probably not. - jc37 20:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I guess we agree to a point, but not on where to draw the line. Take care. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

interpreted broadly

I'd just like to say that interpreting [13] and [14] as substantially amounting to a merge or deletion is a broad interpretation beyond all reason. Kww (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There's more to than that, like this as an example. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, not much. TTN is under pretty severe restrictions, but, so far as I can tell, has lived up to the letter of them. There is a pretty strong campaign from the "winning" side of the arbcom decision that is now attempting to make every edit he makes into an arbcom restriction violation in order to effectively ban him from the site. It is the obligation of every admin to ensure that that does not happen.Kww (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Your characterizations of my intent are off base. See TTN's talk page for more inputs. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not mean to characterize your intent at all, only those of people that keep dragging him to ANI and Arbcom. I am sorry that anything I said was read that way. I've been following this issue closely, and will stand by my statement that TTN has operated within his restrictions.Kww (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Please, if I am so pitifully ignorant, explain to me the purpose of Arbcom detailing restrictions which admins then proceed to ignore? None of his edits have violated the Arbcom restrictions, and certainly the purpose of the Arbcom decision wasn't to allow Final_Fight: Streetwise to be immune from editing.Kww (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
And, on a related question: if WP:AE isn't the place to complain that people have incorrectly blocked people in the name of enforcing an Arbcom decision, what is the appropriate place? Kww (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me point out that several people have chimed in on this block and you seem to be the only one who agrees with you, except TTN of course. Part of your complaint deals with the scope of his restrictions...the proper venue for that is WP:RCAM, which has already been pointed out. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think most others have just given up, just chalking it up to being another consequence of a disastrously bad Arbcom decision. Anyway, you are mentioned in a clarification request. I'd notify TTN, but it seems pointless.Kww (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The FF article does make me pause, but I don't see how this could be even close to the restriction. It's also a bit inappropriate to block people when we were already asking arbcom about the matter on WP:RFAC. You should have waited until an arb commented on the situation. Prod them if you have to, but it's their clarification that we need, not yours. -- Ned Scott 07:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me, I got my timeline of events totally wrong. Sorry about that. -- Ned Scott 07:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Pvt Parts

Did you really mean to userhardnameblock this guy? He's been a legitimate contributor for a long while. If you have a problem with his name, maybe an unblock and a discussion with him about a name change might be gentler. I'll wait a bit for you to respond. --barneca (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just saw the "not a wheel war" note on your talk page, so I'm going to go ahead and unblock him. I'm happy to talk to you about it when you get back online. To be honest, I'm kind of OK with the username myself (tho I understand your point), so rather than start a conversation with him about a name change, I'll let you do it if you still feel its inappropriate. --barneca (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

AN/I efforts

Hi. I have observed your excellent and diligent efforts on blocking and undoing vandalism. has anyone ever thought about creating a task force or subgroup of admins, mainly to stop pointless vandalism? I didn't realize that people go around blanking archives until I saw that post. i suggest that someone convene a task force. just a thought; I'm not even an admin. i appreciate your great ongoing efforts. also, i guess I am really asking if this has been done already. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's kinda of what WP:AIV is for. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Category rename (IF!)

Rlevse, Perhaps if Category:Wood Badger Wikipedians isn't deleted (crosses fingers), it should be renamed to Category: Wikipedian Wood Badgers or something similar. I think the standard is to have "Wikipedian" be the first word in a user category. I wish I could add myself; I never finished my ticket :( —ScouterSig 18:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Remind me when it's over. Now go finish your ticket! That's like making Life and not Eagle ;-0 — Rlevse • Talk • 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

William M. Connolley case?

Wasn't that request sitting at 4-1? UC rejected, but the running total didn't reflect that. R. Baley (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

UGH, that last vote snuck in. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No harm done, I just couldn't tell if I had missed something :-) R. Baley (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A hunch I've got

Noticed User:Gregory E. Miller just added his name to the members list of the Wikiproject I help maintain. Sadly, given the huge issues I've had with User:Greg Jungwirth I'm now treating any members with the name Greg or a variant of that name which pass by where I usually patrol with strong suspicion as it's fairly probable it's him. Drifting through his contribs for suspect activity I notice that he has himself down at WP:S-MEM as having Rhode Island as a location and animation as an interest, both of which GJ had which seems to fit with my suspicions seeing as he did pre-empt himself recently by warning me about "the next friend I make" being him in one of his recent routine talkpage blanking efforts. Keep an eye out for him, it does seem he's making an attempt to get at me and this might be it. Don't want to accuse anyone incorrectly but it seems far too convenient that all those little things pop up at once. Will give the user the benefit of the doubt for now unless something comes up which seems to fit his MO. --treelo talk 00:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ScreenStalker blocked, arbitration

Please see User talk:Screen stalker#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying - he says he is still blocked and can't participate in the arbitration. Might also be true of Gni and Zeq. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Screen stalker and Gni are unblocked only to partake in the arb case. See their talk pages. Zeq is formally banned. I'm not unblocking him without arb approval. If you want that, contact the arbs. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I just can't understand

Why reports of posts like this are deemed "not serious complaints" at Arbitration enforcement. Could you enlighten me as to what it is? Is it that nothing I say is serious? Is it that his behavior is the fault of the person he is uncivil to, as Thatcher thought with me? Is it that nothing he does is bad by definition? Is there a secret Admin Gauge of Incivility which is set to a completely different scale than normal people's? Is it that nothing said by someone who has ever been called a fringe POV pusher is serious? Is it that each time he's reported you set the clock to zero, and say "Aww, it's just once, why do anything"? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 16:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That post is after I closed the last AE. To me, it's incivil and condescending. The rest of the problem is multi-faceted: too many users file weak cases at AE, SA usually knows how to stay just below the obvious violation threshold, SA has several pro-science admins ready to unblock him, too many on both sides fall into finger pointing too quickly, etc. As for this newest post, file it at AE and see what happens, but you may want to ask SA to refactor it first. I'll stay out of this round. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess I'll take your advice then. I've been afraid to file anything at AE since you blocked me for doing it last time. So I take this advice as meaning I'm pretty safe myself this time. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dusti

Hey there Rlevse, bit of unusual activity with your admin coachee today, I think he may be gone from Wikipedia, at least until we hear otherwise. See this section of my talkpage, see Dusti's recent contribs (especially deleted contribs). Just to keep you in the loop here, nothing else needs doing ATM. :( Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thanks for letting me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Komodo lover

Hello Rlevse. If you have a moment, can you see if you have anything you want to add to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Komodo lover? I think you filed the first RFCU back in November 2007. This fellow continues to vex us; see Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Komodo lover. I blocked both of his most recent incarnations due to reports at 3RR, but User:Gb was the first to make the connection to Komodo lover. CBFan believed that filing a checkuser might have some value, so I did so. But I'm not sure what CU can do in cases like this; maybe it can give ideas for a range block? EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse. I don't mean to be nosy, but can I help with this "Komodo Lover"? I honestly have nothing else to do and this guy seems to be a pain in the butt so if you need my help, just know that Im here for you. Gregory E. Miller (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Sure. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Do you need me to do anything?Gregory E. Miller (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC))

Not right now, thanks. If you're a new user, it's best to start out improving articles you're interested in. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AE thread

I have closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Martinphi. Please note my closing comments. I am informing you because you posted in the discussion. Vassyana (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching?

Hello there, recently, my admin coach Riana retired, and I am now without a coach. MBisanz suggested I talk to you, he thinks we would be a good match. If you can't, I understand, but I would really appreciate it if you could coach me. Thanks a lot, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Click here: User:Steve Crossin/AC — Rlevse • Talk • 17:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Will do. May take a few days, i'm busyish with MedCab, but I'll do it ASAP. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 17:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Poyoyloar

I think Poyoyloar and Tromatical are probably sockpuppets. If you think a checkuser can allay any remaining doubts, ask for it; otherwise, use your discretion and block based on the evidence that's there. Fearedhallmonitor is probably unrelated. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Will file and SSP, it's too intermixed with the User:ArchieHall SSP filing. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Anything

Hey Rlevse. Everything seems peaceful with the pages Im watching and I have nothing to do. Can you give me any work or have me help you with anything? Gregory E. Miller (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

What on earth are you doing?

Do you realize that you are violating all kinds of principles of Wikipedia? [15] Why are earth are you dead set on violating WP:NPA? Wow please cool it. What is your problem? --Filll (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies to all. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

AN/I post

There are real name issues involved and, if I am not mistaken, ArbCom is generally aware of the situation. I can discuss this further via email, or you may contact ArbCom privately. Thanks for understanding. Vassyana (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See above thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem

No worries. I removed the post and wanted to make sure I did the courtesy of leaving a polite explanation for you, offering a couple of options to discuss the issue further if needed. My email box is open and I'm on IRC sporadically if you needed to touch base about it. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tks. It was what I hope was a momentary lapse on my part. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes we just have to be careful.--Filll (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance re sockpuppet case

Hi, I was referred to you by User_talk:Shalom, who recently marked as resolved a sockpuppet case without really resolving it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Garhauer_%282nd%29

I would appreciate it if you might look over that, together with the discussion between myself and Shalom on his talk page.

Or else you could "unresolve" the sock puppet case, which sat in the queue for several weeks without attention as it is.

Thanks.

bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 06:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he closed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
What? He is not an admin. He just closed the case without taking any action whatsoever. Four sockpuppets, a repeat offender, and about the clearest case I can imagine...?
Forgive me, I'm annoyed cos I waste an hour doing the report then this happens. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 11:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Experienced and trusted users are allowed to close obvious cases. Shalom is very good at SSP, I ask him for input a lot there. He actions are well within standard actions for SSPs of this nature. Leaving one account active is not unusual at all. If problems with the sock/master persist, you can let me know directly on my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
He did not leave one account active, he left all four socks active. He took no action. Would you please at least look at the case before shrugging me off? bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 12:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not worth blocking the IPs, I just blocked the one that starts with "A" and tagged the user page of named accounts. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 13:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Next time I make a mistake like this I'll just ask you to fix it myself. It would have saved you and Badmonkey a few minutes. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Np. Don't worry about it. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

I've gone and answered more of my coaching questions, care to have a look? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 10:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Responded. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, I've never had an old username. I only had a rename, from User:Cro0016 to User:Steve Crossin. I also operate a bot account, User:SteveCrossinBot (on trial), but apart from that, I have no other accounts. I'm also an admin here. I think I need to get some more experience in more controversial areas, that was recommended in my editor review, which is in my signature. I could also use more experience with the Deletion process, particularity other types of deletion other than articles. Other than that,I'm not overly sure at the moment. I could use some more article work though, but the 24 Project has many opportunities there. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 12:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


Role accounts

What is a role account?--81.86.68.253 (talk) 07:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC) registered as Tyw7 Tyw7's Talk

See your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:

I'm fine, just busy. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 11:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA notification..

Rlevse, in the future, please notify me when including me in an RFA. I would expect at least that courtesy from an admin. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I did neglect that and it's my error. It was not intentional. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Aaron-Brandon

Could you please block these guys? Thanks. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Tyw7 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Proposed decision

"For this case, there are 13 active Arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority." err ... 7, right? --GRuban (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Link

I hope you don't mind, but I fixed a link here. Dreadstar † 16:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 18 2 May 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor 
Wikimedia Board to expand, restructure Arbitrator leaves Wikipedia 
Bot approvals group, checkuser nominations briefly held on RfA WikiWorld: "World domination" 
News and notes: Board elections, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Did You Know ... Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Volume 4, Issue 19 9 May 2008 About the Signpost
Sister Projects Interview: Wikiversity WikiWorld: "They Might Be Giants" 
News and notes: Board elections, milestones Wikipedia in the News 
Dispatches: Featured content from schools and universities Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Arb pages not orphaned

Hello. Your posts confused me a bit. This page is a redirect that is orphaned (see here). Its subject-space page is also a redirect (see here). I was deleting old talk page redirects where the subject-space page was a redirect. The redirects I was deleting were orphaned (no incoming links), had only one revision, and hadn't been touched in 30 days. Perhaps I'm missing something; let me know. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, as soon I posted I thought more about what you had been saying and realized that this had come up before. It has to do with the multiple definitions of "orphaned." Not orphaned as in CSD#G8, orphaned as in no incoming links. Thanks for the note. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Do we really have to put up with this from Juanita?[16] I got a one week ban (a year ago) for a comment that was nowhere near this level of insulting? (Hypnosadist) 09:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Can you get me the diff that got you blocked? Thanks for pointing this out. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, Your last block was over a year ago, so I suspect it is unrelated. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The first third of the paragraph I have an issue with. The latter 2/3 is okay because she's saying 'if you do this to only one side...'. I've asked for evidence or a refactor and warned all. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I did warrent my 1 week holiday from editing as i did need to cool down, its just accusations of genocide are a bit much, her point that to be just all sides must be treated the same i see as "self evident". (Hypnosadist) 12:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand. Keep me informed. She's had her warning. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I see where I am being informed on. It is clear that certain people are working their level best to get me removed from wiki. Lawrence Cohen and Hypnosadist and others have made no bones about this, and are working on it on the workshop page. In fact, if anyone reads the top section of the talk page with an open mind, the personal attacks against me and generalized anti-Zionist 'remarks' have passed without comment. Lawrence Cohen has made his very own proposal to block me indefinitely. I have not been going to anyone in response to the provocations dished out to me but I can certainly find plenty of evidence of them if anyone wants it. Comments such as this.
Regarding the remarks I made about wikiforPalestine. I was not accusing anyone in particular of anything. The evidence for my comments have to do with the very existence of the group and its requirements. The wikiforpalestine group is a group of 12 established editors here at wiki who were required to have demonstrated 'proof of anti-zionist edits.' It is clear that these (unknown) editors were well aware of the CAMERA issue here, as they followed the discussion that has been going on here at wiki; the proof is that they wrote to it on their Yahoo! page, even using my name to refute me, there until they suddenly disbanded. They met under a banner of divestment, boycott of Israel, and anti-Zionism. We know nothing about them -- not their wiki identities or positions or what they do here on wiki or outside. There is every reason to believe that they are attempting to cleanse wiki of a certain point of view and substitute another; and proof of that is essentially from their own group-statement. The "ethnic cleansing" statement I made had nothing to do with genocide- that was Hypnosadist's prejudicial imposition on my words. I will drop the ethnic part if that will make muster and talk only of 'cleansing wiki' of an zionist perspective if that is better. I tried to put up a screenshot of the group's statement for my talk page User_talk:Dajudem, but it was tagged for speedy deletion by Lawrence Cohen and gone in 5 minutes (+/-). If you would like to see it, let me know. Thanks. Juanita (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, clean up the stmt as much as you feel you can and give me link to that item, admins can still look at it, even if it was deleted. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the link to the dif: [17]Juanita (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That's much better. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Because I believe that the accusations I made about Hypnosadist and Lawrence Cohen deserve some evidence, I put up some evidence at my talk page (bottom) of some of the really uncivil and inciting comments that were made to me here at wiki the first couple days of this investigation. There is plenty more where this came from, unfortunately... Juanita (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. Question. I already submitted a long statement on the evidence page. Can I change it, delete some, add some? Juanita (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you can change, add to, edit or delete evidence in your won evidence section. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Rlevse i'm leaving this arb, given that gross racist accusations are met with refactor it and its all ok but civil questions mean i am to be admonished for civility issues, i'm leaving before i get in more trouble. The none stop attacks are driving me to distraction, they started the moment Camera was caught and have not stopped for one day since. If you need to ask me a question come to my talk page, if kirill wants admonish me for asking a civil question too many times he may as well do it now, but i never misrepresented wikipolicy. (Hypnosadist) 11:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Incivility on Request for Arb page

Hello. I notice that you're trying to maintain a civil atmosphere on the RFA CAMERA page (e.g. [1]). Could you perhaps similarly enjoin Eleland to immediately remove his insulting description of Gni/Ini (in his world they are the same person) as a witch?[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gni (talk • contribs) 14:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Thank You

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

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

User_talk:Shalom#Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Iwazaki

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

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

Question only you can answer

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

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

Talk pages

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

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

Re: Clerk stuff

On his talk page. Done. Ncmvocalist (talk)

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

Appeal archiving

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

Made link, answered on your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 20 12 May 2008 About the Signpost
Explicit sexual content draws fire Sighted revisions introduced on the German Wikipedia 
Foundation receives copyright claim from church Board to update privacy policy, adopts data retention policy 
Update on Citizendium Board candidacies open through May 22 
Two wiki events held in San Francisco Bay Area New feature enables users to bypass IP blocks 
WikiWorld: "Tony Clifton" News and notes: Autoconfirmed level, milestones 
Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Changes at Featured lists 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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

WP:HAU

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

RFAR update

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

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

Arb clerk

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

OK, let me work on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Likewise Rlevse, I'd be delighted to join up as a clerk. Let me know when you've discussed it. Cheers, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching

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

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

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

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

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

Changed my mind, we will make it Feb. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 22:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should discuss this on IRC? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

SP

Rlevse, if you have any influence with Evrik/South Philly, could you please ask him/them to stop adding sockpuppets and wasting the time of editors who would rather be thinking about Wikipedia articles. [18] betsythedevine (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Request

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

Appears it'll resolve itself, the blocking admin made a proposal and TTN seems to have accepted. Let's let this play out. Let me know if it goes awry. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I posted a note to Vassyana's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Freddy vs. Jason

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

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

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

CAMERA lobbying

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

Hmm. There I'd just be regular admin and it's not an arb but on the arb case I have some acutal authority since I'm a clerk. I'll post a note, but even if I protect it, they could go create a new sub page. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Understood, but I think it's better coming from someone uninvolved in the case. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Identity outing in the ArbCom case

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

Southkept [19]
For Oboler, it is all one big edit. The section I was concerned about is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence#Evidence presented by Oboler, notably the sentence that reads "Evidence that user BangPound is XXX can be seen by googling BangPound and checking pretty much any profile using that username". (XXX is my own-self edit). In that section noted, it contains someone's, presumably Bangpound's, real nameTarc (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
the diff by southkept is dead, so it's a non-issue. I'm cleaning up the rest of this. Thanks for letting me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Rlevse, appologies, I did almost post to your talk page to ask first. I figured given the name has been released in the press it wasn't really an outing, but more a verifaction. I did also have ChrisO (one of the admins involved in this) effectively outing me [20] , now I was also ready posting under my own last name and the person I was speaking to (who had attacked me then appologised) was told this by myself in private (seemed the honest thing to do) after he attacked in an unacceptable way and misready what I had written. He's appologised and all is forgiven... but I do wonder if I was wrong here if Chris was not likewise wrong?
Also, I avoided posting what i put on the evidence page on the web prior to this. If there any reason it can't be put up outside of Wikipedia, given people seem to be questioning it. (I'm assume the answer I get is "none of our business what happens outside of Wikipedia", but if not please let me know) Many thanks and sorry for the trouble. Oboler (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Even if it's findable by google or whatever, it's considered contra to wiki policy and spirit to out someone. As for you being outed, it's not obvious as that diff refers to another diff, probably why it wasn't noticed. Since that page is not part of the arb case directly, I don't watch it. You need to report this stuff. I'll ask ChrisO about outing you. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt reply. My ability to communicate is rapidly going down hill (given the lateness of the hour) so appologies that my second paragraph didn't actually make any sense. What I was trying to ask is whether there is any Wikipedia policy that effects what people do outside Wikipedia? Also... when you suggest reporting being outed (I assume I don't need to in this case as you are talking to ChrisO?)... but for future reference, where and how does one report something like this? (That's not an ArbCom case) Many thanks again. Oboler (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Wiki has no control of what people do outside wiki, but if they're abusive and have a wiki account, it is possible for that account to be blocked. As for future outings or whatever, report to an admin you trust or report to WP:ANI and an admin will pick up the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping it was a hypothetical, but please see [21] given we've already discussed this and you know what's going on... would you mind? I've given an account of myself there as I think that is the proper thing to do. I would welcome a comment from yourself there. Thank you to the answer to the other question. I believe if something is outside wikipedia's policy (say, if it is original research, thought is clearly not what we are talking about) then even though it can't be on wikipedia, I believe it would be ok outside wikipedia provided it was polite, valid research, and relevant. I think I'll have to take my chance on that... thank you for talking it over with me. And I do appologise for making extra work like this. Oboler (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Pagemove protections

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

CC referance

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

WP:AE block

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

See [22]] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I guess I was a bit hasty there. I'll post on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

(ec) Please also note that editors in this dispute are engaged in mediation about these articles with the MedCab Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20 Divine Light Mission‎, and despite an invitation to User:Francis Schonken (the user that filed the WP:AE request) to join in dispute resolution with other editors,[23] he has not done so, choosing instead to make unilateral edits[[24]] that have not been discussed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to fall asleep. I promise I'll look at all this again in the am. I asked Momento to comment on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Momento was warned at User talk:Momento#Warning and after Francis made his enforcement request I alerted Momento within 10 minutes. Francis' edits were no more "unilateral" then Momento's, and the majority of edits by both parties have been unrelated to the active topics in mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, it's poor form to criticize an editor for failing to accept an invitation to join mediation that was extended only six hours earlier. We usually don't hold mediation "against" anyone, and he hasn't answered the invitation one way or another yet. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • And, erm, could someone please let me know if they do join the mediation? Would help quite a lot. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Could someone post this on Momento's page?:

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

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

  • I've unblocked you. I strongly suggest some sort of WP:DR, such as mediation, on this and related issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Rlevse - dispute resolution has already been used - there have been multiple mediations in the past including this editor. The current multi-editor mediation shows little progress in handling a mountain of issues, and the areas this editor has been fighting over aren't even included. The case went to ArbCom who handed it over to admins for enforcement. I think it may be helpful to unarchive the WP:AE request in order to get more input and to review more evidence. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fair. I'll do it now. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. That'll give Momento a chance to explain himself as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

GJ sockpuppetry case

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

OK, seeing as this nobody else has touched either case yet I'd like to draw your attention again but this time ask for assistance rather than just notify you of these things. There has been no action on either the SSP case or the RFCU after nearly a week and I'm certain that is much too long for these cases to still be useful in finding these vandals out. Please make some time to check these out. treelo talk 13:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Not being a CU, there's nothing I can do about the RFCU. A CU will get to it. As I've been dealing with both you and the alleged sock, I can not act on the case and maintain neutrality. I hope you understand. You can ask someone else to look at it if you want, or wait til someone gets to it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Dang, neturality! Knew I was missing something with this issue. Thanks for telling me, I've requested someone else go look at it as there's a backlog on SSP which doesn't seem to be moving. treelo talk 22:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

RFAR/Mongo

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

Basically, they're leaving the prior decision intact, "It is not prohibited to create a Wikipedia article on Encyclopædia Dramatica (per discussion above)" but whether to create the article (ie, is ED notable) up to the community, and that if one can link to it is dependent on that notability. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Surely that means remedy 1 is still in effect, yes? Sceptre (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Remedy one of the original ruling, yes, I'd say so. ED links removable unless the community decides ED warrants an article, which I personally think it does not warrant one. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you clarify on the talk of the article? Your comment is being interpreted as saying a consensus can overrule the ruling (which, per Jimbo, it cannot) Sceptre (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Camp Minsi

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

Advice?

Hi Rlevse,

Really sorry to be bothering you again, but things seems to be getting out of hand here [25]

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

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

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

re on your talk. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you mean [26] rather than my talk? At any rate after posting this turns up [27] I have no objection to the IP check given the other person is not me and in all likelyhood may well be in another country to me. The "evidence" looks like harasment and coming so close after I ask for advice above, perhaps stalking as well. What do I do? Oboler (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
If it's not you and someone you have no contact with, you have nothing to worry about. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not me and the only contact I have had with this person has been on Wikipedia. I assume the IP Check has been properly requested and will be done... but I don't see where it will turn up? The accusation will remain there on the evidence page (even after its disproved) unless CJCurrie removes it himself I assume? Where does the result of the IP check show up? Unrelated but sorry again about replying within his evidence (making work for yourself) I saw someone else had done it and temporarily forgot the instructions at the top of the page. Sigh. Oboler (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I found this [28] there is a note there asking if this shouldn't be done by a Clerk (which would I guess be yourself?) Sorry! Oboler (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. Seems CJCurrie has now finished removing every link from every article in English Wikipedia to any source at Zionism On The Web. This can't possible be appropriate given the discussion we were having and other people's views on the subject. This coming after his false accusation and usercheck leaves me at a total loss. I stumbled this because I saw [29] via a google alert which makes unfounded generalistic claims of copyright violation then it goes on to call my site a hate site! I'm very careful about copyright and regularly write to people askign for permission to reproduce things. I also have standing permission from a number of academics, research centers and publications. The hate site claim is however totally unbelievable. I noticed the link which shows all references to Zionism On The Web and was interested myself to see how many links there were (as mentioned before I haven't added any in some years). I found there were only links on talk pages... then found it was CJCurrie himself who had taken unilateral action to remove all links despite conversation to the contrary on the admin discussion board. What do I do? This must be a violation not only of harassement of myself but of serrious manipulation of Wikipedia. If he found one or two link that he though shoudl be changed fine, but removing every link under different pretexts.. wow. Does Wikipedia have a way of resolving something like this? Oboler (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You can put this, with diffs, on the evidence page and propose remedies if you want. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... I'll do that. It's going to take me a bit of time though as I have real life things to do. And this is frustrating beyond belief. It make the whole wikipedia concept seem perverse, why bother discussing if someone can just take unilateral action? Why bother editing to improve Wikipedia is someone can take a dislike to you (personal or politically - I don't know which it is) and then work to have everything you do removed, not to mention anything anyone else does that would reflect positively on your work (e.g. citing it where appropriate). I think I'm going to go and have a cup of tea and calm down. Thanks for the fast reply. Oboler (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I put it together here (linking to this talk page) [30]
What a complete waste of a day though. I supose those dealing with vandalism do this all the time. I hope someone considers it. Oboler (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't work. My evidence was at 1000 words before... this new content pushed it well over. Any ideas around this? Explaining the problem and giving the diffs requires space. I've spent 13 hours on this and am not very happy right now. :( Oboler (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Go over 1000 words if you have to, just be as to the point as possible. Arbs hate reading wordy statements. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, The original statement and rebuttle is under 1000, the new request is 1200 but it contains a lot of evidence and could I hope really be considered as a seperate submission. If I spot awat to make it shorter again I will. Thank you again for all the advice. Oboler (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not seeing any evidence that the evidence I added re: CJCurrie trashing wikipedia wih respect to Zionism On The Web is being considered as part of this case. Would you be able to check if the arbitrators are considering it? And if not suggest what course to take? Also I've just flown in to the US... will only have sporadic access. Oboler (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As the case is about to close, not much one can do. You either filed that evidence too late and they didn't bother to look at it or they looked at it and decided not to act on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to genetics

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

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

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

You forgot to actually apply the block

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

link and link. Credit to User:EJF for discovering the latest sock. Enigma message 00:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for letting me know. I tagged and blocked 92.5.36.7‎, SimsFan, and King Monty IV. Let me know if there are others. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
another sock. Every time his account gets blocked, he quickly opens another account. Do you think RFCHU is warranted? Enigma message 22:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, file it, and ask for the underlying IP range to be blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SimpsonsFan08‎ Feel free to adjust it if the case can be improved. Enigma message 23:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why did you close Sumerophile sockpuppet case?

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

The ones in the RFCU were all blocked, no reason to keep the SSP open. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
No reason? So I guess the admin politely requesting that it be kept open is "no reason"? I will now have to re-open it, because the socks are coming out on a daily basis... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Open a new case. Adding new socks to existing ones that are blocked already just confuses the case. If there are lots of socks, your best bet is an rfcu as that will find all of them faster anyway. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Hi

I answered your question: [31] Cheers,

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

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

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

User:Setanta747

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

OK with me, I see you and others have turned him down ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 18:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Great - thanks for that! I've left some unblock terms on his talk page, so. If he'll agree, I'll unblock - Alison ❤ 19:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Committed Identity

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