User talk:Rlevse/RlevseTalkArchive5

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

Thanks

Gee, man, thanks. Unexpected but highly appreciated. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 17:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Category:Military brat

Well, somebody beat me to the category of military brat, but I went through last night and updated all of the brats on the List of famous military brats to have the category on their page. Well, the category has already been nominated for deletion. The reasoning is because it is a "non-neutral" term and parental occupation is irrelevant. Thus, I'm letting people who have contributed to the Military brat article know so that they can support keeping the category. Here is the link to the discussion [1] Balloonman 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks :)

Hi Rlevse. The Scouting barnstar is much appreciated - thank you. Perhaps I should print it out and sew it to my Cub Scouts uniform from days long past!

I didn't finish the Scouting copy review (requested by Sumoeagle179) before the article was awarded Featured status, but I still intend to do so. –Outriggr § 23:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Random Question

Hey Rlevse: Do you know the equivlant of the Eagle Scout in Russia? I checked the List of highest awards in Scouting, but it's incomplete (and somewhat misleading), and I read the Russian Association of Scouts/Navigators article to no avail. I think is it the Order of the Bronze Beaver, but that award may be similar to the BSA Distinguished Eagle Scout Awards (DESA). Anywho, any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Zidel333 03:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Try Jergen or Wimvandorst. I do not know myself. Rlevse 10:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

GG/GS

Can do! We'll get it up there! I can probably get that in today. Darthgriz98 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a bit of a hold up with the article yesterday due to something unforseeable, but do you know any places other than the official site where I can find that info? I checked there and there was nothing I could really use and I don't want it to be original research.Darthgriz98 19:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Not off the top of my head. Try thr Girlguiding UK site. I'll let you know if I find something. Google may turn up something too.Rlevse 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Girlguiding UK just had activities that's where I got that section from, GSUSA probably won't have anything. I'm going to look further into the Google search and see if other countries have anything on it. Darthgriz98 00:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

homosexuality

Hi, Perhaps you might ask the League of Editors to have a go at it, after basic structural work has been performed?

BTW, I see above that your demotion to worker ant failed. Thank goodness. Let them do the clerical work. Tony 00:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

threats

Randy, this one actually has nothing to do with the Project, but you are a man who knows how to get things done. I have now been physically threatened on my talkpage, last comment, by user Patchbook, and I need to report it to someone in the proper method. Please help. Chris 09:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Handling through private means.Rlevse 13:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Scouting IS a resource

Rlevse: Scouting IS a resource, but who would have thought that I'd be able to use it for other wikipedia work? I've been able to use the rating and ranking schemes (that YOU helped create) from the Scouting WikiProject, and put them into another WikiProject, one for Greek Life. I've also started a migration in the tag-template, so that it includes the ranking/rating scheme in it. THANK YOU for all the work you've done, and now that same work is going even farther! Deepest regards from an Eagle Scout: —ScouterSig 16:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks. I'm noticed you've become very active in Scouting articles lately and hope that continues. FYI, I had the tiniest of parts in the orginal creation of the grading scheme for wiki, but was key in (but not the only user) adapting it for the Scouting Project. Good luck with your other project too. Rlevse 16:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wood Badge

Hi Rlevse - I saw your message to BDuke, and wondered exactly what you wanted for the UK section in the Wood Badge article - I can provide information and references from the UK websites quite easily, but I'm concerned with just making the section a copy of the programme and not actually an encyclopaedic reference... Horus Kol 21:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Give it your best shot and we'll work with it. Rlevse 22:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't actually gotten round to doing much with the section yet... I'll see what I can do this morning... Horus Kol 09:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
re:refs and wikilinks - sorry I hadn't referenced yet, but I have to go to printed publications instead of online ones for this and I'm away from home at the moment - will get on it on Thursday/Friday... about the wikilinks, will try and sort some of that out too... Horus Kol 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - I haven't been active much over January - I've been busy trying to get teacher training placements and so on... I'm glad about the references. I'll see what I can dig out on the five year thing - I'm beginning to think its one of those things everyone knows but it isn't written down. I guess it comes from the fact that warrants and appointments are reviewed every 5 years, and you're expected to have completed the requirements by the first review - but, again, nothing seems to be written... Horus Kol 19:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

De La Salle GA nom

I've wikilinked the full dates on the references and in the article. I don't know how to use the cite format so I've left the citations as is. --Mithril Cloud 14:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to incorporate your suggestions in the following days. :) --Mithril Cloud 16:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

PR script problem

Strange, someone else had told me about this problem before (I fixed it and then accidentally reverted myself sometime later :( ), yet whenever I try it on the mentioned articles, the message doesn't seem to appear. Anyway, I have [re-]fixed it.

By the way, I just completed a guide to the messages; I'm working on redirecting all of the footnotes there now. AZ t 17:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Navy vet?

See my response on the talk page. I may just be tired and missed it, but I did not find a reference to the Vietnam war in the references cited. The term "Navy veteran" was used, which could be interpreted as having served in the Navy or as having served in the Navy during the war. — ERcheck (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Scouting images

Hey ... I noticed on my watchlist that you added Image:Tidewater Council Shoulder Strip sm.jpg to Category:Scouting images. I know you're going to love this ... but fair use images can't be in galleries. So either the whole category needs to be tagged with __NOGALLERY__ on the category description page (that would cause it to appear like Category:Fair use in... images where you just see image links instead of images) or it needs to be split out into two different categories. In other words, Category:Scouting images could have a subcategory called Category:Non-free Scouting images. As I said, I know you're going to love this. ;) --BigDT 03:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Aargh. It makes no sense to me why they can't be in galleries. I'll get it, but feel free to do it for me...;) Rlevse 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I have created the category - Category:Non-free Scouting images. Any new non-free images should be placed in that category instead. Also, please note that you have to pipe the page name. Because it displays the images alphabetically like an article category, you use [[Category:Non-free Scouting images|{{PAGENAME}}]] to get it to show up in order correctly. --BigDT 03:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi folks, I saw this interesting discussion. It looks to me as if all of Category:Scout logos may be fair use. Can it just be moved to be a sub-category of Category:Non-free Scouting images? Of course I did not check all of them. I'm not even going to start looking at all the USA ones in the others two sub_categories of Category:Scouting images. I'm not really into images, but I'm trying to learn more. Don't ask me to mediate a case on images!. At least not yet. --Bduke 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Good catch! I have added __NOGALLERY__ and moved it to the non-free image category. This category is populated by images that have the {{scoutlogo}} template, so almost certainly, all or substantially all of them are going to be non-free. Of course, these images need to be changed so that PAGENAME is piped into the category include. Maybe a bot can do it. --BigDT 05:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Some in Scouting images are free, I'll look at it.Rlevse 13:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:BSA War Service Uniforms 1917 18.jpg

Can you check out Image:BSA War Service Uniforms 1917 18.jpg? I uploaded it with Uniform and insignia of the Boy Scouts of America in mind ... but I wanted to check and make sure it is really a regular uniform and not something special. --BigDT 04:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ja, as soon as I saw them I think "BSA uniforms from 1910s". Confirmed by the patrol leader bars on the left sleeve of the one on the left, BSA collar bars on the one on the right, and the legend in the upper right "War Service Uniforms 1917-1918". Go with it. I've added it to the commons Scouting gallery.Rlevse 10:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-cats

It is time to review the articles in the Scouting category as it had ballooned back up to a substantial number. I noticed that there are now enough articles specific to WOSM for it to have its own sub-category. --NThurston 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. WOSM is now a sub-sub-cat of Scouting (Scouting Organizations) to house all WOSM specific articles. I thought to have 'WOSM member organizations' be a sub-cat of WOSM, but maybe they should both be there. Want to take a look and suggest something? --NThurston 15:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Hi. I have been lookign through your edits and feel that you would be great as an admin. Whether you decie to accept or decline, let me know. --Wizardman 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wizardman would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Wizardman to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rlevse. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Well, most notably your work on the Good Article Noms caught my eye, plus I took a look at your edits using some edit tool and saw your huge amount of edits. That's pretty much the gist of it, that and random chance. --Wizardman 02:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Decline at this time. May reconsider later.Rlevse 02:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright. Well, thanks for considering it then. --Wizardman 02:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Armia Krajowa GAR

Lead expanded.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you comment on the current dispute which threatens the stability of the article (a Lithuania-related section, added after GA status was achieved).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Leo K. Thorsness

Leo's article makes no mention that he was ever an Eagle Scout. If you've got a source for this, you might consider adding this achievment to his bio. Rklawton 16:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add him the Mitchell Paige article, but I'll look for a source. Always good to find another MOH/Eagle. Thanks.Rlevse 16:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 ?

Yo man - why did you delete the Order of the Arrow Planning Meeting on the Scouting Portal? That's current events.--DrxOA1000 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an news section, mostly international, for things of broad worldwide interest. Not for things like meeting announcements. If we announced that for things all over the world, it'd take pages. It's not just a BSA/OA portal and project.Rlevse 19:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The Bharat Scouts and Guides - B-class now?

Hi Randy, could you have a look at The Bharat Scouts and Guides. I think it reached B-class after my edits. --jergen 12:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely B-class now. Rm'd attention tag too. Thanks for all the checking you've done on stubs and such. Always glad to check on upgrading improved articles. Rlevse 12:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Battlefield 2

On the GA review page you said "nonstandard ref formatting", could you please explain as I want to help fix up the article. BJTalk 17:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

See WP:GA/R commment.Rlevse 18:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. BJTalk 18:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Missing article

Missing article

This article: Scouting in Prince Edward Island you put two tags on with ratings does not exist?????? Rlevse 16:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Similar articles exist for every other province; Scouting in PEI is the only one missing. The tags will categorise the missing article into wikiprojects so that members of the projects will notice the gap and fix it. --Arctic Gnome 19:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Tin Tun

Would you please watch over this article? A biased newbie keeps editing out what I verified and documented. As a Scouting bio I don't want to see our pages violated. Chris 20:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, but it'd be harder for him to refute if you footnoted it vice just having general refs.Rlevse 20:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

chill out

It was a really silly opening, and to think that it's acceptable to put up for a FA is ... annoying. Tony 15:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Silly is a big understatement.Rlevse 15:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Coker article, film reference

Hi, I was reading over the George Thomas Coker article and found a discrepancy on one point. It is about the John McCain film. The article describes a 1997 film — Faith of Our Fathers. I looked at the imdb link and it did not appear to be the correct film. I checked the John McCain article and found what should be the correct film (2005). See these two:

The first one is the one referenced in the John McCain article in the section on appearances in film.

I made the correction in the article, but left commented out the 1997 reference, in case there is something else there.

— ERcheck (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'mm sure I just goofed the film.Rlevse 15:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
You added the retrieve date and changed to {{cite web}} template. I was using the standard imdb film template, {{imdb title}}, which takes title id and film name. Converting it to the web template misses the url, to which the imdb template makes the automatic conversion. I made the edit to repair the rendering. — ERcheck (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Another scout

Hey, Rlevse, Mike Searson (talk · contribs)'s user page says he's in scouting - might be another helping hand. I've been following his progress on Ernest Emerson since I encountered him on the peer review of that article. It's at GA now, in case you want to review. (I don't do GA reviews.) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Amenhotep I GA Nomination concerns

First, thanks for taking the time to look over the article; it's amazing how backlogged that page is.

I have attempted to adress your concern about the lead in that article, however it would be helpful to understand more what you found lacking so that we may fill it up. Thanatosimii 02:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Missy Higgins & John Mayer images

Ha, thanks.

Hoping you had a good Christmas and such. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce

I've expanded the lead and dealt with all of the references. Anything else? RHB 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

See comment on talk page.Rlevse 23:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Hello

Hey there. I just wanted to pop in and say "hi" because I haven't talked to you in a while. I hope all is going well and I wish you a (somewhat belated) Happy New Year. I found some old Scouting related slides so I am going to go through them soon and see if any of them are worth posting. My hopes are not high - they are from an old 110 camera and date to when my photography skills were even more basic than today. We'll see. Johntex\talk 04:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria FAC

Hi! Today I've nominated the article Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria for a featured article, believing it meets all criteria.

This is the article's third nomination (see the previous ones), and because you voted or commented on one of the previous nominations, I'd like to invite you to voice your opinion about the current state of the article, be it as a vote or a comment, on the article's nomination page.

Thanks! :) Todor→Bozhinov 16:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal for mainpage 22/2

Hi Randy, I saw that you proposed several articles for a mainpage listing, notably the Scouting article. Since progress on B-P is going really slow, and it is not even close to FA quality, I had also been thinking about proposing an alternative article. While investigating how that was again, I found you already did: well done. And then I saw you copy-edited some alternative very popular text into the Gilwell Park nomination.... Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi Wim, recently, I nom'd Scouting and Gilwell Park for the main page. Darthgriz98 nom'd GSUSA. If you wan't to nom something else for 2/22, fine with me. I'll even change the request date. I asked for 2/22 because I wasn't sure you/we would get BP there in time. I'm not sure what you are getting at about the Gilwell Park nom text. Do you want to change it? Please advise. I was out camping in the cold this weekend-;). Rlevse 18:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wind hasn't dropped completely yet since the storm last Thursday, so one better avoids tents here, albeit temperature isn't bad (no frost in this winter yet). Hope you had a easy camp. What was the opportunity? Is there such as thing as Wintercamp to balance the Summercamp? Our Cubscouts will do indoor camping in a weekend next month. (ps. the advice is to remove the phrase with 'hallowed'). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
Done. Good catch.Rlevse 23:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)...We camp all year, but the week long ones are usually only in the summer. This was an annual winter camping event we call "Freeze-o-ree".Rlevse 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal concerning User:English Subtitle

Can't see how this should work. WP:RCU restricts the tool to very few cases. Perhaps CODE D, but I don't think so. --jergen 22:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, D, I think it's vote fraud and someone trying to hide their previously known identity. Rlevse 23:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Note

I've responded (twice) to your recent inquiry. — ERcheck (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I saw, the letter is good, but without a snail or email addy, there's no way to send it.Rlevse 23:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I've sent you another note...please check it out. — ERcheck (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Found an e-mail address.... see my note. — ERcheck (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ernest Emerson

Rlevse,

I've cleared up some of the prose on Ernest Emerson making the two articles merge better into the one, restated the Lead, etc. If you feel it doesn't pass muster, can I have a two-day extension?

Thanks in advance. Mike Searson 06:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ernest Ivy Thomas, Jr. suggestion

Per your suggestions, I've added a footnote to the Ernest Ivy Thomas, Jr. article (in the introductory paragraph). Does this help? — ERcheck (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks.Rlevse 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Explanation re Oops-Leon requested

Hi there. Nobody who works on good articles has yet explained in what way Oops-Leon ought to be expanded. Can you please go back to the review and offer a more useful comment on what criterion the article is failing? (Not length, I hope... since that's not a criterion.) -- SCZenz 22:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

AIV

A bit of a mess - You added your report in the example section which included all the possible variations including the ~~~~. And the the bot added your signature plus all the other examples were signed for the bot. All fixed now. Anyway I delisted your report, as he stopped after the final warning. Agathoclea 23:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

arrgh, so sorry about that.!Rlevse 23:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

List of United States Navy ratings

Hi, I wanted to explain in greater detail my revert of your change to the list the rating insignia. The example image is of a SO or Surface Warfare Operator insignia, an anchor, trident and flintlock pistol pointing up barrel to the right. The SB or Surface Warfare Boat Operator insignia is a anchor, crossed cutlass blade down to the left and a flintlock pistol pointing down barrel to the right. — WilsBadKarma (Talk/Contribs) 02:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Humshaugh

I have never heard about this before you put the link in my talk page... I guess the difference is that the Brownsea Island camp was an experiment which led to the creation of the Boy Scout Association and the World Scout Movement, and Humshaugh seems to have been the first gathering of Scouts after the creation of the Movement. I've never seen it in any of the histories of Scouting I've read, though, so it's interesting to hear about it now. Horus Kol 20:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Four woodbadgers

Nice picture! Definitely adds to the article. What would you think about trimming off the top where the empty space is? Johntex\talk 02:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not that good at that stuff. Just sent you an email. Will send you the image. If you want to crop it, go ahead, send it back, and I'll upload the new version. I'd prefer to upload new version myself if you don't mind cropping it.Rlevse 02:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I sent you two alternate versions to consider. Let me know what you think. Johntex\talk 03:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I want you to know I am still watching the article. There are a lot of good changes being made and a few more questions asked. I have no doubt we will be able to promote it soon. Please keep up the good work. Best, Johntex\talk 21:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

SASA

I'd like to get the SASA article up to FA status. I know there is lots still to do on it, but, I would just like to get your input as a much more experienced editor on these matters. Should I first put it through a peer-review (stating the intention to get it to FA), or must I take the plunge straight into a FA nom (Even if it might fail)? -- YiS, Jediwannabe 07:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki PR doesn't usually work well anymore. I'd list it on the Scouting Project page for a project PR (there's a section for it). Then I'd also leave notes with our experienced editors like Wimvandorst, Gadget850, Zaian, Bduke, etc. Rlevse 10:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your work--literally!

The Society Barnstar
For creating all of the Scouting-categories and their pages; I've been able to copy almost two dozen so far in the Fraternity and Sorority project. In this manner, you've helped bring that project into the Wiki Age! My mother thanks you. My father thanks you. My sister thanks you. And I thank you.

—ScouterSig 22:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, what can I say. I'm glad we were of such help. Thanks for the award.Rlevse 22:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: FA Award

Thank you for your kind words! (But haven't you written more FAs than I have, by now? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Suburbs Railway Line FAC

Hi Rlevse - I think I've addressed your concerns on the ESR/Illawarra Railway FAC about the wikilinking of dates, so if you could take another look at the article that would be helpful. If I've missed one or two, please point them out. Thanks for your help. JROBBO 01:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Katholische Pfadfinderschaft Europas

Could you have a look at Katholische Pfadfinderschaft Europas? This needs perhaps s last finish by a native speaker of English. Thank you. --jergen 21:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for copy editing. --jergen 08:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the DYK recognition

Thanks for the DYK medal! There have been some interesting tidbits in the recent bios I've worked on... — ERcheck (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Template and fair use images

I just noticed that {{ScoutingWikiProject}} now includes a GGGS taskforce parameter that includes a fair use image. This is not allowed under the terms of fair use. We need to figure something out. --NThurston 14:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I just changed it to a free one Chris drew. Good catch.Rlevse 15:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

GSUSA

Um, somebody decided that the article needed a complete rewrite, but claims the intro only needs re-written because it wanders, you might want to check it out. It sounds like somebody is misunderstanding the tag first off second maybe the intro needs re-done, either way it's probably best for somebody with better prose than I looks at it, and I tend to be biased with that article. Darthgriz98 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but someone just beat me to it.Rlevse 00:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
So it really did need help; I never noticed how redundant that line was until they took it out. Darthgriz98 02:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wood Badge

Rlevse, sorry to take so long - I'm a terrible copyeditor, which is why I focus on structural issues. Looking at those:

  • (This ref needs better expansion): Media release Accessed 12 January 2007
  • (This should include the full date on the press release and the org issuing the release): Scouting for knowledge. Training Press Release (2005). Retrieved on 2007-01-21.
  • (This is coming up dead for me - can you find it in the internet archive?) Schiff Scout Reservation. Schiff Scout Reservation. Retrieved on 2006-02-04.
  • (Does this seemingly simple statement really need five sources)? No person may serve as Wood Badge staff on courses in 2007 or later unless that person took the course, or served on staff, after 2001.[14][16][17][33][35]
  • (I don't know how to wiki date ranges - have you checked this)? September 8-19, 1919.
  • I did notice one thing on the prose - your very first sentence in the article after the lead is:
  • Those who complete Wood Badge are recognized with regalia consisting of the Wood Badge beads, neckerchief and woggle.
  • It seems better to start the article out with "Scouts who complete ... "

Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've started working them.Rlevse 02:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

News item of interest

Since you created the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 article, I thought you might be interested in this news item:

— ERcheck (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Studio 2B

Hey, what else do you think needs done with Studio 2B? I'm not quite sure what else I can add to it. Darthgriz98 04:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I just submitted it for scouting peer review from the project. Darthgriz98 04:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Military brat (U.S. subculture) fac

Hi Rlevse, I believe that I've made all of the changes that you requested on this article... or at least I hope I did ;-)Balloonman 07:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Humshaugh - Did you know?

I nominated it for DYK after I rewrote it last week - DYK allows for articles that have had a sufficient amount of new information added to it even if the article is older than five days, so I thought "Why not?"... Horus Kol 11:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know you could nom DYKs that had lots of new info even if older than 5 days. Great work!Rlevse 12:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
"Proposed articles should be over 1000 characters, cite sources (these sources should be properly labelled, that is, not under an "External links" header), and be no more than 5 days old (unless it was under 1000 characters, marked a stub, and has been expanded by at least an additional 1000 characters), and should not be marked as stubs. Articles with good references and cites are preferred to those without." Horus Kol 13:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, maybe I should read more, but there's so much on wiki and so little time-;).Rlevse 13:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yup - there is a lot to take in - I just remembered from when I was nominating some other DYKs last year Horus Kol 11:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

4-H and WP:SCOUT

Hi Rlevse. I'm sorry we've never talked on Wikipedia before. You've done a lot of great work for scouting articles on Wikipedia! The reason I come to your talk page today, though, is that I noticed you removed the 4-H article from the WP:SCOUT WikiProject. I respect your project's decision if it was final, but I was just wondering what the removal was based on? Just for reference, here's a Google search that has links to a number of resources that talk more about how 4-H is very much a scouting (and guiding) organization. I hope this helps. Thanks so much for all the great work, again! Justen 17:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Non-aligned Scouting organizations

How is this for the category description?
"This category is for Scouting organizations that are not members of the World Organization of the Scout Movement or the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts. Scout-like organizations are also included." --Jagz 21:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK for now. It's always going to have wiggle room no matter how we describe it-;)Rlevse 21:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page as well

You know whose. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

  • After the care you took on Scouting, I think it is now nearly up to standard again. The lead hasn't changed significantly, so that's fine. Therefore, I think it doesn't need reverting anymore. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
Thanks for the compliment, but I see your rv'd anyway, that's the right decision with the Main Page coming, and I left a support msg.Rlevse 01:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wood Badge

Hi Rlevse, I've been slowly responding to your request to review Wood Badge. Where do you think it's at now? I have one more section to review, but I notice there's a fair bit of article re-org going on. I'll try to look at the last section soon. –Outriggr § 06:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty good because of you and the reorg (which is aimed at getting FA too). Please look at the last section when you get time and thank you again.Rlevse 10:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks. I appreciate your kind words. --BigDT 23:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Scouting on the Main Page

Congratulations on Scouting being on the Main Page!

I didn't sign back in until just a few minutes ago, so I wasn't able to respond to your note about vandalism to the article. However, I've noted that an admin did block the particular IP address for vandalism, so it should stop from that IP.

— ERcheck (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Hello Rlevse, I see that you and the others involved in the Scouting portal have steered clear of the AfD on Baden-Powell. Is that a wise choice, considering that if this article is dragged down the material will have to find a place in the main article again? It seems to go counter to the work that we and others did on this subject a while ago. Regards, Haiduc 05:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't steered clear of it, I was just watching how it was going. I did see at least one other member of our project vote on it. If it is deleted, the material, in full, going back in the article, would cause the same problems as before. I'll see if I can gen up some interest.Rlevse 10:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
PS-I hate it when things keep coming up for afd/cfd don't you? Anyway I've contacted our active members to look this over and vote. I see three have already done so. Take care.Rlevse 10:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Gang Show

The Gang Show is an important part of Scouting in many countries if not the USA. I am reverting your high handed reversion. Albatross2147 11:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many things that are important in some countries, but not most. By your standards, virtually everything should be in See also.Rlevse 12:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Silly me - I should have realised that if something does not originate in the You Ess Ay then it clearly has no significance Albatross2147 12:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are being silly, if you'd bother to check, the last person who rv'd your entry was Bduke, who is British and living in Australia, the same place as you. Rlevse 12:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Poms - I dunno why we let them in... must be our generosity of spirit. Anyway believe it or not the USA doesn't have a mortgage on nutters who gang up on people who make changes to articles in good faith. But I am not going to get into a revert war on this - no doubt to your disappointment. I just don't understand your attitude which is bordering on petulant - NIH syndrome is something you should get a pill for. Cheers - enjoy your little "victories" Albatross2147 12:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
See WP:CIVIL and research what the scope of See also is.Rlevse 12:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
For mine the take home is Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Albatross2147 12:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Guide to layout#See also Rlevse 13:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You should try actually reading these things which you so kindly point me to. I note words Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent.... I shall wait a few days to let everyones' heads uncloud and add the see also Gang Show link with an explanation of its relevance. Will that help? Albatross2147 13:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
No, you have been uncivil and insulting for no reason.Rlevse 14:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
No actually it's being blunt and to the point when being confronted by high handed priggishness. Albatross2147 13:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You shouldn't talk about yourself that way.Rlevse 13:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Goodness gracious. I have been flayed with thawed out spinach. Albatross2147 13:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I could be much harsher, but then I'd be stooping down to your lowly, infantile, and puerile level.Rlevse 13:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear how sad I have found a US Gang Show - or at least evidence of same - http://www.troop3derby.org/ Albatross2147 14:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I just wish you could have been with me at the first rehearsal of our Gang Show this past week end. You would have discovered that scouting does not have to be uninclusive, sterile, unfunny. Boys and girls having fun in a safe and happy multi-ethnic and multi-faith environment. (No guns in someone's pocket or in the back of the pick uyp on the way home from some drunken tailgate party in some desolate college football stadium parking lot, no security guards either.) Albatross2147 14:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We're riding along on the crest of a wave and the sun is in the sky,
All our eyes on the distant horizon, look-out for passers-by.
We'll do the hailing, when other ships are round us sailing,
We're riding along on the crest of a wave and the world is ours!

Albatross2147 15:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Watada an Eagle Scout?

Lt. Watada's status as an Eagle Scout is well documented in a variety of media outlets. I added another reference for good measure. Feel free to remove it, I'll put it back. Unless you can provide documentary proof that is irrefutable and contradicts what the news media have been reporting. Andrew 01:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to refute it, only make sure it's got a valid ref like the others in the list.Rlevse 03:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the fact tag to the list and the article. The reference in the article was dead. I do not dispute that Watada is an Eagle Scout. Every *section* in the Eagle list has a clear comment about references being required. Please note that I tagged it instead of deleting it offhand (we probably delete 80% of the additions because they have no cite). --Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Gadget.Rlevse 03:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're not going to like this

Don't shoot the messenger ... but check out WP:AN#Important notice regarding fair use that all administrators should see. The Wikimedia Foundation has sent out a new image use policy. 99% of it is what we already do on en and a lot of the text almost reads like it was copied from an enwiki policy page. But the big thing is at the very bottom - on fair use images. If I'm reading this right, they are saying that identification is no longer a reason to use a fair use image. If it is impossible to discuss the topic without one, IE, your article on merit badges - it would be silly if you couldn't show the merit badge you are talking about - then you can use it. But if you are merely using it as a primary means of identification (a corporate logo, TV screenshot, etc), it goes away. I wouldn't do anything yet ... that's just my interpretation of what they are saying ... but just be aware that the restrictions on non-free images are about to be tightened again. --BigDT 05:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't like it, but I'm also not surprised as the path wiki is on shows no sign of slowing re FU. Two points: 1) the message by Kat nowhere says the word "identification" and 2) it's so open to interpretation, meaning it can't be applied evenly by everyone, that even you guys who understand this stuff aren't sure of its impact and meaning. And yes, I'm not going to do a thing. Rlevse 10:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Gold Eagle & Gilwell Logo images

I have created an svg version of the DESA gold eagle. It is almost an exact replica of the png version. Would you like to see any modifications? Can I nominate the png versions for deletion as obsolete? The last file to be vectorized will be Image:GilwellLogo.png and its twin. Any suggestions or comments there? --NThurston 15:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, you're doing good. My only input is the Gilwell ax and log look too "linear" maybe you can make it more realistic in general. I'm not good at that stuff. Rlevse 16:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Nicolas, Randy, you're not gonna like this (where have I read that before), but putting th SVG version of the Gilwell logo in PD is really not possible: the logo in all it incantations is copyrigthed..... Of course I think FU banning getting obnoxious, but we better understand what we may be facing. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
  • actually if you draw your own, which is what was done, I think it's okay. I'll get our image expert, BigDT, to comment here.Rlevse 22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I think trace vs. draw might be an issue. This was more of a trace vs. a draw. In any case, labelling {{scoutlogo}} doesn't cause any immediate heartburn, since it is only used in articles. I'm going to change it for now. If we come to a different conclusion, we can change it back. --NThurston 01:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you trace, draw, or in any way replicate a non-free image, the result is still non-free. It can fall into two categories, neither of which is helpful. If it is an exact copy, sometimes called a "slavish" copy in lawyer speak, that is not considered a creative act and nothing new is created. So whoever owns the original copyright owns the new thing. An example of a slavish copy would be a photocopy from a book, a scan of a patch, or a photograph of a 2-d object (like a painting). See Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. for more information.

The second possibility is that if you did create something new and distinctly different, that would be a derivative work. Only the original copyright holder can authorize a derivative work, so unless the BSA authorizes you to create something based on what they hold the copyright to and allows you to release it under the GFDL, we can't use it here. So, for example, if you create a freehand drawing of the Starship Enterprise, we can't use it here, even though you did it from scratch. A legal test on determining whether something is derivative is whether the observer who sees them both in passing would conclude that there is a relationship. So if, for example, a company uses a green triangle for their logo, they can claim copyright all night long, but I am perfectly free to draw a green triangle and it wouldn't be infringement. (Trademark might be an issue, though ... and that would depend on what I was using it for. If a company that sells gas has a green triangle and then I open up a gas station next door with a green triangle as my logo, they might have a trademark infringement issue.

So, talking specifically about the Gilwell logo, if you draw an ax in a log on a green background, that's something generic - they have no way of stopping you from using that. But if you trace it or draw one free hand, but obviously based on the real thing, that would not be acceptable. --BigDT 02:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So why is our Eagle Square knot that we use not-derivative. I find this stuff so confusing! Rlevse 02:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, some people might say that it is. The thing to understand about copyrights is the law does NOT lay down exact standards. The BSA has square knots of basically any two-color combination of rope. No court would say that this prohibits anyone else from making square knots out of two pieces of different-colored rope. If you use an SVG tracing program to trace a scan of the Eagle knot, that's probably a bad idea, whether we might be able to get away with it or not. But if you freehand drew a square knot created with a piece of red-white-and-blue rope, I don't see a problem there. If I go out and buy red-white-and-blue rope and tie a square knot with it, nobody would say that I am copying the BSA-owned logo/artwork. So in my view, it's fine, though some may disagree. In Rogers v. Koons, the court held that, "Substantial similarity does not require literally identical copying of every detail. Such similarity is determined by the ordinary observer test: the inquiry is 'whether an average lay observer would recognize the alleged copy as having been appropriated from the copyrighted work.'" The law doesn't lay down an exact standard - it's up to interpretation ... and in my view (purely as a layperson - I'm a programmer, not a lawyer), the knot is fine. --BigDT 04:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool, we'll keep using it. I think the Gilwell and Eagle ones that were just made is fine too because it looks substantially different from the official logo.Rlevse 10:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is any question on the Gold Eagle. It is a simple shape that is significantly different than anything the BSA claims copyright to. Same for the knots. There is artistic modification. I am thinking this might be like Andy Warhol painting Campbell's soup cans. I support keeping knots and Gold Eagle as pd. Gilwell logo - I'm not so sure, but it doesn't matter for now because the current use is consistent with fair use of a Scout logo. --NThurston 15:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Exactly because the Gilwell Park logo is such a very good lookalike of the original (well done, N), that I broached the subject here. But scoutlogo is ok (as long as FU remains 'acceptable'). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Gus response

No problem on the cites. Sorry for causing you extra work. Cla68 04:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson short and choppy sentences

I'm afraid I've looked at the article so many times it is a bit of a blur. If you give some examples, I would be glad to try to improve them. Here or in the review, whichever you'd prefer. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You

punk  ;) Coffeeboy 15:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

ha, take care. Rlevse 16:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America GA Nomination

I put it on hold per notes on the talk page. It's a great article, and it's mainly unreferenced information I'm concerned about. Thanks for working on the article. I was a scout myself. Mocko13 02:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Percy Julian

Percy Julian changes were made, take a peek, lead increased by 30%, 3 more references, references formatted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

  • done
  • done both come from the Nova transcript

Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)

It looks good to me. Yes, I generally don't edit on Saturday due to Shabbat. Sorry for the inconvenience. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Pashtuns

Hello. Could you kindly respond with a vote on the Pashtuns page? I've addressed the issues you and others brought up and hopefully the article is now up to snuff. Your comments and input are greatly appreciated. Thanks. Tombseye 21:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

RFA nom, take 2

BigDT would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact BigDT to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rlevse 2. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Last time, you said to ask you about adminship again in a month. It's now been a little over a month ... so here ya go! Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate#What to do if you are nominated by someone else: for the instructions on what steps you should take to complete the nomination page. --BigDT 01:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I accept. Rlevse 02:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear it - you'll make a great admin. You have some questions to work on. ;) You want to make sure that your answers are reasonably detailed (a paragraph or so) ... don't put people to sleep, but more than one sentence is a good idea. Make sure that you follow the instructions - if you don't, people get annoyed. Also, it's important that the ending time (in the header at the top of the nomination page) be set to exactly one week after you transclude the nomination page in the main RFA page. Right now is 9:20 our time, or 2:20, Feb 20 GMT. So just add 5 hours to the current time. --BigDT 02:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Specific examples are usually good. Pick out an article or two that you have written and add it to #2. If you have a really good example that you can think of for #3 where you helped another user understand a policy, link it. If there is anything that you already have done relevant to #1, mention it. (Linking to specific xFD discussions would be overkill and silly, but if you frequently review and comment on Scouting xFDs, for example, you might want to mention that experience.) What you have so far is probably fine ... it just couldn't hurt to have a blue link or two somewhere in there. ;) --BigDT 02:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yup, saw the rfa quite quickly. I'll probably add my original nom in as a co-nom if you don't mind.--Wizardman 02:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
OK with me.Rlevse 02:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Rlevse-congrats on being nominated for admin, you're doing fine on the RFA.Sumoeagle179 19:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

East Carolina University GA

Hello, you recently looked over East Carolina University for being GA quality. I added refs and cut down/out the list. minus the standard format, how does it look now? Thanks in advance! PGPirate 04:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Date formats

The date prefs work with any date format. Anons (ie, most readers) do not have date prefs, which is a main reason ISO format is discouraged in prose. ISO is generally only used in the footnotes for access dates. Gimmetrow 03:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Montreal screwjob FAC

Hi Rlevse - could you please have a look at this article and its FAC? I request your input. Rama's arrow 03:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your input. I've rewritten the lead paragraphs - it was important to describe what exactly happened (what was seen on tv) in the very first para, becoz the concept of a screwjob is not well known or understood. Thus the lead's summary might seem a little out of order. As far as references go, I will definitely keep looking for more sources, but almost all important details in the article have been cited properly. Additionally, please understand that this is a topic and field (professional wrestling) where WP:RS is very difficult to satisfy, owing to the paucity of authoritative literature and lack of any official source of documentation. That said, there are already more than 50 citations for the entire article - which also adds to its present length. I will definitely try hard to find more references, but please have another look. Thanks again, Rama's arrow 03:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi again - just wanted to update since I messaged you last, I've added 2 more books and 5-7 more citations to the article. Please have a look at the article now. Cheers, Rama's arrow 23:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

E. Urner Goodman article

Hi Rlevse,

I've done some work on this and was wondering what you think of it now, compared to last summer when it was tagged for improvement?

BTW, I liked the look of your User Page header so much, I added it to mine, too -- I hope that's not a faux pas  :o)? JGHowes 16:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page.Rlevse 22:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Unit links

Take a look at Law Enforcement Exploring and see what I did with that list of unit links. Is this a good way to handle this? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's excellent, and it also follows project policy, but I'm not an admin quite yet-;). Rlevse 22:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why you would want that headache :-) I just wanted your opinion on this. Seems like there are a lot of drive-by edits where folks add unit links and we turn around and revert them. I think this is probably the best solution by linking to the dmoz link farm. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I declined an RFA last month, but then someone else nominated me, so I went for it. The vote is currently 42-2, so I should make it.Rlevse 03:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination review

Hi — 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines is nominated for GA. If you are so inclined and have time, would you review it? Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we are completely on the same page on this. I was not asking you to review and promote it, rather to give it a once over for feedback — which you have provided and is much appreciated. There is energy from one of its editors to get it to GA status and it is helpful to have feedback to work with for improving the article. Again, thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Work has been done in 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines per your suggestions on the article's talk page. Would you care to check it out now? — ERcheck (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Your additional comments have been addressed. Hope you have time to take a look. — ERcheck (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reviews, suggestions, and promotion of the article. — ERcheck (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

Isn't it 'A with B do' instead of 'A with B does'? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

I honestly don't think so, it just doesn't sound right. To me, "A with B denotes" but "A and B denote". Maybe it's a dialect of the language issue, but "A with B denote" hurts my ears-;) Rlevse 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You're the native speaker of this particular dialect of the English vernacular. So I won't revert your edit. Sleep well, I'm off now. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC).


Featured topic

Just a warning, but a WP:FT needs to be "focused" and "complete". You can't simply pick the best articles on the subject and call it a topic. You might do "early Scouting history" and have Gilwell Park, Badel-Powell House and Robert Baden-Powell, a GA and whatever else is relevant. Or you might focus on the merit badges, Eagle Scout, Wood Badge, History of Merit Badges, etc., including them *all*. Gimmetrow 03:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations!
It is my great pleasure to inform you that your Request for Adminship has
closed successfully and you are now an administrator!

Useful Links:
• Administrators' reading list • Administrators' how-to guide •
• Administrator's Noticeboard • Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents • Administrator's Noticeboard for 3RR •
Your admin logs:
• blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads •

If you have questions, feel free to leave a talk page message for me or any other admin. Again, congratulations! Essjay (Talk) 02:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Congratulations Rlevse. May I wish you many more FAs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Welcome to the fold! Looking forward to the first time you'll be accused of abusing your privileges! :)) Rama's arrow 02:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey ... I see you've already got the mop on your userpage! Good job! --BigDT 02:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well done. ViridaeTalk 03:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on your promotion to Admin! — ERcheck (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah! — Rebelguys2 talk 04:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Rats! I'm sorry I did not see your RfA. I would definitely have been in Support. Congratulations. Johntex\talk 05:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I did not see your RfA. I would definitely have been in Support. Congratulations. --evrik (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Congrats! Darthgriz98 03:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Congrats... if I had seen it I would have supported 100%Balloonman 00:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks on my Rfa!

Rather than spamming the dozens of supporters of my Rfa, I'm heartily saying thank you here to all of you and look forward to working with you all.Rlevse 03:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Article merging

Camp Oljato and Camp Casa Mare have been out there too long. We should cut bait or fish. My preference, of course is that we keep them and note them on the WikiProject page for expansion. --evrik (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, wiki policy is to wait two weeks for merge talk results. The consensus on both is to merge though, so if someone doesn't do it soon, I will.Rlevse 22:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking

FYI, someone like Telewarper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) who has only vandalism edits can simply be indefinitely blocked (after the appropriate warning(s) have been left, of course). {{subst:test7}} can be left on their talk page. There's no reason to block for a shorter period of time if it's a throwaway account. --BigDT 03:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV reply

He was creating attack pages that must have gotten speedied before you saw them...sorry. RJASE1 Talk 03:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's okay, seems he's a sock too.Rlevse 03:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Obi-Wan Kenobi

I never got a reply to my concern on WP:GA/R on how to inline reference material that is taken from a film. If an article such as Obi-Wan Kenobi has a section called "The Phantom Menace" why do you consider it necessary to use an inline reference for that section, when clearly all material of this section stems from the film? In what way would these references look like? Can you give examples of how featured articles that use films or books as primary sources make use of inline references? / Fred-Chess 23:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA which passed unanimously - thus proving that you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time. I'm still coming to terms with the new functionality I have, but so far nothing bad has happened. As always, if there's anything you need to let me know, just drop me a line on my Talk page. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Closing AfDs

Remember to add {{subst:at}} above the header and not below. The mathbot miscounts otherwise. Cheers. Majorly (o rly?) 16:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Geogaphy Cup

You said on the FAC for the Geography Cup article that you would not support 600 words for FA. At last count, due to additions based on comments, it is now 1400 words according to the search page. If you would consider changing your vote, please do so on the FAC page. If not, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See FAC page.Rlevse 22:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked spammer

Hi Rlevse, I noticed you were the admin who blocked User talk:71.75.18.180. I think the same person has been editing as User talk:69.53.185.56 because the exact same links were added to the exact same articles. I gave that last IP a final warning a couple of weeks ago, and I was wondering if the circumstances warranted a report to AIV. Let me know what you think. Cheers. Robotman1974 23:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Great job noticing this similarity! The problem with AIV right now is that your warning is about 3 hours after 69.53.185.56's last edit. I'd suggest staying on it and warning him as again as soon as he does it again and then when he violates the warning, put on AIV. Since this are both anons, an indefinite block is unlikely, but maybe you'll discourage him and you may notice the same behavior from any account he may create. Also, document all of his bad behavior as later an ANI notice or something may be warranted. Hope this helps.Rlevse 00:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do that. Thanks for the advice. Robotman1974 19:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Edit conflicted - was going to restore then I hit another edit conflict.  :( My bad. x42bn6 Talk 00:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Stuck your comment back, by the way. x42bn6 Talk 00:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thanks.Rlevse 00:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Digimon wrestling

FYI, I protected this article so it can't be recreated and Pelican was indefinitely blocked by another admin. Rlevse 01:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Roger that. Some people just don't get the message... ~Matticus TC 01:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Need for Speed XI

Hi Rlevse, I think you made an incorrect judgement in closing this AfD. This article is about an unnannounced video game with not a single reliable source (even though the authors have used speculative fansites as refs nicely). A comparable precedent is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarCraft II. I realise that a number of people voted to keep the article, but as the closing admin you should not count the number of votes, but look at the merit of the different arguments. My personal opinion is that the article should be redirected to Need for Speed for now and it can be restored if the game is actually announced. I ask you to reconsider your closing: if you stick with your original judgement that is fine, I'll probably take this to deletion review though, since I feel this is an important precedent. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-03-3 19:34

I can see your point, and yes merit can at times outweigh voting, but I think that both sides have merit and the raw vote was defnitely not a definite in either direction and within the closing admin's call. I guess we'll have to simple disagree in a kind matter. Thanks for the input. Also is there an official wiki policy on future games? There is nothing banning articles on future events in general, there is event a tag for future event articles. So, I'm not convinced there's a firm policy on this, just varying opinions perhaps. The Starcraft article case may not be the best one to use to support your side as it was an obvious delete, whereas the vote in this case was almost evenly split.Rlevse 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You say that both sides have merit. Can you specify what merit there is to the "keep" votes? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see on what ground Wikipedia can have an article on a video game that does not even exist according to the people who are supposed to be developing it.. Thanks for your response on the WP:COI page, btw. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-3 21:58
I think it has merit in the same way that people write articles on an upcoming election or Scouting event. For example, we have articles on the 100th anniversary of Scouting here in 2007 and no one is saying the articles shouldn't exist, so why shouldn't an article on a game in progess exist? To me it's the same logic. If you file for deletion review, I won't object or interfere.Rlevse 22:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know anything about scouting, but regarding elections we at least we know that they will eventually happen. For a game that has not been announced, who knows if this game will ever be made? The developer hasn't admitted that it will. I'm almost certain that you wouldn't write a Wikipedia article about a scouting event unless that event had been officially announced. The release of a video game is some kind of anniversary that can be planned in advance. I find it rather ironic that I, as a die-hard inclusionist, have to be the one arguing for the deletion of an article. But seriously, there is not one single reliable source that says that the subject of this article even exists. Remember that Wikipedia articles have to be verifiable.. This article can in no way be verified... JACOPLANE • 2007-03-3 22:34
WP:CRYSTAL does not require "official" announcement, only verification and there are refs in the article that discuss it. The article has a future game tag on it, giving ample notice the game isn't actually out yet and the first line says it's "expected". It's obvious the game is in development and the article clearly states such. Now if it had no refs at all, I'd agree with you. I simply and honestly don't see that any wiki policy is being violated here. My suggestion is list it for deletion review or relist it for afd to get more input. I am curious as to one thing...why do you thing Starcraft came up so clearly a delete while this one didn't?Rlevse 00:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We would like your opinions at the talk page too, if you may. --MrStalker 09:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Scouting Tireless Contributor Barnstar

Many thanks for this award. Maybe you should have waited until the mediation is settled -:) I'll trey to ensure it is settled successfully. --Bduke 02:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll do fine.Rlevse 02:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD on Amir Massoud Tofangsazan

Thanks for closing my AfD nomination of Amir Massoud Tofangsazan. I am considering putting the retention of this article up on a deletion review—not to question your conclusion that there was no consensus to delete, which was reasonably clear, but to allow a broader discussion of some of the broader issues involved, outside the wiki-notorious context of a Brian Peppers or Daniel Brandt. I'm going to think about this before deciding whether to go ahead, but in the interim, wanted to give you a head's up, and also the opportunity to further explain your close if you cared to. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The vote was close, clearly within an admin's call. One thing, but not the only thing, that swayed me was that there were two other afd's on this that were ALSO no consensus; there is clearly a wide range of views on this. If you want to put it up to review, it won't bother me at all, but I suspect that 3 afd's that were all no consensus will make it a hard sell, but by all means list it for review if you like. Rlevse 03:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)...actually one was a speedy keep, the net result is the same.Rlevse 03:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The two earlier ones were pretty much contemporaneous with this person's 15 minutes of fame, and also took place before we adopted the current version of the BLP policy, so I don't see them as particularly relevant. I'll give this some more thought. My concern is not this particular article, but our overall approach to articles whose encyclopedic value is outweighed by potential damage to real people's lives; see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad for the broader context. If I decide to put this up for review I'll let you know. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
You make a good point, the policy here is important, it maybe should be reviewed. If an article is a clear policy vio, it can be speedied, like an attack page.Rlevse 03:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Socks

It was not me who reported those users, it was Tellyaddict, all I did was add a few notes onto AIV. I will create a sock report then, but really, as listed on tellyaddict's talk page. It was a shared Ip which was "Supposedly" behind the dispute of one particular page which was continually being deleted and re-created. I think it's sorted now. Retiono Virginian 15:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The page was speedily deleted. 3 times, hence why they have no contributions. Retiono Virginian 15:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the article, which several edit wars have undergone, constant recreation, and just blatant trolling by three accounts and one Ip address. Fran Timbers. Retiono Virginian 16:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

See the bottom of Tellyaddicts talk page, Longa already requested the article to be protected from re-creation, and stopped the trouble, of being a shared school ip. Best not to block. Retiono Virginian 16:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite know what you should do, but you being the admin, and the more experienced user, you do what you feel is nessercy. Retiono Virginian 16:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for your help with this matter Rlevse/RlevseTalkArchive5 its really helped, I hope you like your new admin tools!Tellyaddict 16:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Account creation blocked

I notice that most of your {{usernameblock}}s are with account creation blocked, generally it's best if good faith users are encouraged to create new user names that don't violate WP:U, rather than blocking them from doing so. I realize it's set as the default option under the blocking tab, so a lot of new sysops make this mistake, and I'm sure it was in good faith--VectorPotentialTalk 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, and I'll keep it in mind, but the ones that are also vandals and/or had sexually offensive or racist usernames I don't consider good faith editors.Rlevse 16:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Ip you blocked

You cannot block an anon Ip forever due to just one death threat, it's just not right, shorten it to a month or so, you're only allowed to indef block an Ip if its an open proxy. Retiono Virginian 16:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I've shortened it to 48 hours, due to the unclear nature of whether the IP is shared. --Nlu (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip guys, death is pretty serious though. I'll report as on the blocking policy it says to report threats. Rlevse 16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Johnny the Boring Vandal

Hi there! Per your block on Mike Rimbaud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - obvious sockpuppets of Johnny the Boring Vandal should be indef blocked on sight. Thanks! 〈REDVEЯS〉 21:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I didn't know he was a sock of known major vandal.Rlevse 21:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:EvilAlex

This one hasn't learned a thing from his previous revert-warring blocks: EvilAlex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

As soon as his most recent block expired (48 hrs set by you [2]) he jumped right in and repeated the exact same revert warring that he got blocked for two days ago.[3]

In the span of an hour, he made six whole or partial reverts. The page was restored to its original version by two different editors, three times in a row, but it is getting tiresome. This is clearly disruptive behavior, so please take action here.

From WP:3RR:

"The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any edit warring, even if they do not exceed four reverts on a page in 24 hours."

Everyone is willing to engage with the user constructively on the Talk:Transnistria, but I don't see anyone who will accept his constant revert warring anymore. - Mauco 22:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

done, 1 week for cases like this.Rlevse 22:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
"In the span of an hour, he made six whole or partial reverts." - no he didnt. That is a lie! EvilAlex didnt brake 3rr rule. there was only two reverts. + he added POV tag, + he removed disputed content while discussion is still ongoing on the talk page. +he removed broken template. hardly breach of 3rr rule. Transnistrian article doesnt follow NPOV guidelines. Mauco is well known POV pushe in Transnistrian related articles, he wants to have a veto right and by blocking EvilAlex you give him this right. EvilAlex is the only known native Transnistrian in wikipedia. He have been in Wikipedia since 2001 and had only 2 blocks for 24 hours. Hardly a vandal or spammer how Mauco wants to present him. 172.201.152.248 23:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This IP is an AOL UK dial-up, dynamically assigned. EvilAlex lives there. While I appreciate his right to reply, he ought to at least identify himself and not speak of himself in third person. I will not comment on the unjustified ad hominen attacks, but I will point out that User:EvilAlex performed 3 full reverts within the time span of one hour: [4] [5] [6] . In addition, he also performed 3 other edits (which I and the rest of Wikipedia qualify as partial reverts). - Mauco 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
EvilAlex is in an edit war with at least 3 other users and is being disruptive. Work it out on the article talk page in a civil manner first, then edit the article.Rlevse 00:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment: None of his changes were discussed in his Talk:Transnistria prior to introducing them. 3 full reverts in less than an hour? Enough said... - Mauco 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
That is what EvilAlex is tried to do. Currently there is an ongoing discussion on a talk page. Isnt it the best practice to keep the disputed content out from the main article while discussion is on the way? EvilAlex is not the one who started it[7] User:Alaexis firs introduced controversial changes to the article without any notification or discussion. The changes have been reverted by User:Dc76[8], User:Dpotop[9] also in archive 11 there was an agreement on intro[10]. And guess what? Mauco is one of the person who agreed on intro. First of all lets restore the original content, second discuss any changes on the talk page and only then edit the main article. You have blocked the wrong person :( EvilAlex is not a vandal he is a victim. The only thing that he is guilty is: holding on to the agreement and restoring undesscused changes in such a controversial article as Transnistria. Unblock him. Also have a look at changes that he is proposing: [11] everything is backed and supported by reliable references. The only users that oppose it are newbies:
19:44, 27 September 2006 Alaexis (Talk | contribs) New user account[12],
18:42, 26 January 2007 Buffadren (Talk | contribs) New user account [13]
172.207.198.34 01:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
This IP as another dynamically assigned AOL UK IP from the home location of User:EvilAlex. I would urge any admin to judge this user, as well as any other editor, on the basis of their actions and not on how they portray themselves (or attempt to portray others). The one week block was more than justified, but let us see what happens now: Let his future actions speak for themselves. - Mauco 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I find it quite interesting that all the flak on the page has gone away since today's block of EvilAlex and that you are using an IP vice a username. However, I will unblock EvilAlex and protect the page for 48 hours for a cool down and see how it goes.Rlevse 01:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Established editors of Transnistria are quite familiar with User:EvilAlex and we can easily predict how it will go. A look at his edit log will confirm that although he has been a Wikipedia editor for quite a while, almost none of his mainspace edits have survived objective scrutiny and the fact-checking of others for more than 24 hours. This is not just the case on Transnistria but on a number of other pages as well. I am not wrong when I state that 99%+ of his mainspace edits are subject to quick reverts by others. His increasingly antagonistic behavior has over time become quite disruptive to the work of others within the encyclopedia. - Mauco 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The simplest true is that Mauco wants to rewrite entire history of Transnistria. He is pushing and promoting his ideology on ordinary wikipedian readers. And every one who thinks differently is a vandal. Mauco had long history of trolling and disruptive behavior. EvilAlex 14:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
His edits are more in the area of edit war and uncivil behavior, not vandalism, you may need to report this WP:ANI if it continues. If he does go awry again, report immediately. I may not be online at the time.Rlevse 02:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You are right. We'll just see what happens. Several longtime Transnistria users (including some which share his own POV and nationality) have expressed at different times that we hope he will learn from his blocks, and learn to work with others. Some of that commentary is still on his user talk page, although he often deletes comments there which he doesn't like. Mauco 03:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Mauco please stop trolling around. EvilAlex 13:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Everyone involved in that article needs to be WP:CIVIL, cooperate, and work things out on the talk page first. Rlevse 15:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Per our discussion above, I have put the article in question up for a deletion review here. Although I had considered speedying it, I believe that action would have been controversial and just brought us to DRV anyway, particularly in light of a host of recent events. I am also interested in seeking the comments of the community on this type of article outside the recent instances of wiki-notorious individuals. Your comments on the review will be appreciated. Newyorkbrad 22:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will state my reasons and leave it at that.Rlevse 22:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Silver Beaver?

I thought you might be the person to ask about why there is no article about the Silver Beaver or Silver Antelope? If it is just the fact that no one has taken the time to go through and find a history and sources then I would be more than willing to start the articles and spend some time working on them but if it is because they were previously deleted or something else then I won't bother.--Joebengo 03:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply because no one has bothered to write them yet.Rlevse 03:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll work starting with the Silver Beaver and then do the Silver Antelope later.--Joebengo 03:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me know when you've done them, okay?Rlevse 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well I started off a Silver Beaver article, take a look and make the appropriate changes because I know its not perfect.--Joebengo 03:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
That's actually a good start. Fix the refs like I did the first one. More detail and inline refs would help. Do you have a goal of attaining a certain quality rating? Rlevse 10:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well its hard to find a lot of information on it but if it could get up to B-class I think it would be a great addition to the Scouting wikiproject.--Joebengo 02:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
B-class for such a topic would be great.!Rlevse 02:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Our Chalet - Reword

Would you check something when you have a moment? There's a sentence you wrote in the Peacetime reopening section of Our Chalet about the USA Friendly Fund. It needs rewording to make clearer sense. Thank you. Kingbird 18:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Our Chalet - American English?

Hi. It's me again already I'm afraid! I'd like to check with you about the type of English being used for Our Chalet. I had thought that the article was written in American English, but there are certain words and spellings included that I didn't think were used in America, like neighbourhood and autumn. I just wanted to check before I wade in and change these that American English is what we're using for this article. Kingbird 19:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Our Chalet itself uses British English, so change it to Brit-speak, okay? Both Autumn and Fall are used in America, though Fall is more common, so it doesn't matter. This article should use neighbourhood, colour, etc. Thanks. Rlevse 21:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User warning templates

Hey ... one thing I noticed tonight ... when you add a user warning template like {{unb}} or {{test4}} to a user's page, it's important to subst: the template. That way, if the user replies to your message and six months from now, because of our incessant need to change things, test4 says something completely different, the actual message that the user received and replied to will show up on his page. --BigDT 05:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I forget sometimes. THanks.Rlevse 10:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply

Thanks for replying about my question on Obi-Wan Kenobi. Embarrisingly enough, I didn't notice your message until today, it got lost above another post... but it made me very glad that you replied. I'll look it over, and will direct further questions to you.

I realize that you are a busy person and might have missed other comments I made on the GA/R, so I'll ask it here, in case you'd want to reply.

  • [14], there is a question at the bottom that I am curious of.
  • Cullacabardee, Western Australia -- did you notice that this community has a population of 95, when you demanded that the article should also mention education and government [15]?

If you are indeed interested in replying to my questions on the GA/R, wouldn't it be better to keep that page on your watchlist? I had gotten the impression that you are being somewhat snobby.

Fred-Chess 08:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

WINGS2009

I actually know the guy in RL, and yes he is the web admin and content author for a lot Berkshire website stuff... still, I think that the information that was there before (and will be put in again) will be just an advert for the event, not really encyclopaedic. I've put the encyclopaedic information in Scouting in Royal Berkshire Horus Kol Talk 09:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle

You might want to take a look at Twinkle I have been using this script for several weeks now and find it to be very useful. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiny bit of advice

Hi,

When you close a complex AfD, like Amir Massoud Tofangsazan, a sentence or three elaborating your reasoning will go a long way in giving your decision credibility at DRV and with participants. When you just sign an AfD, it leaves people guessing regarding your rationale, and makes contention more likely. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point.Rlevse 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Campbell's Soup Cans FAC2

You were fairly vocal in FAC1 and have not chimed in on FAC2. Your comments and hopefully support are welcome. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

About the article of the Baron Baden-Powell

I saw you removed my pictures of the monument and the monument's plaque. Well, yeah, I might have runied the layout (I didn't see that each picture was strategically included into an especific section) but that doesn't mean you also have to remove the pictures I added, which were quite cool.

I have re-added them in the Awards section. I hope you don't touch them. And be more carefully at time to remove other people's work: I didn't see the layout with which the pictures were organized but that does not mean you have to completely revert my contribution, and remove my work. Onofre Bouvila 18:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Scouting Featured Topic

I noticed that the Scouting Featured Topic has been put forward - I opposed this because I don't agree that it is a developed topic yet, and I said as much in the discussion about the FT when it was put to the project... I think we should take a step back, and look at what is needed to achieve a Featured Topic, and if that means developing some articles, then that actually helps improve the project in the long run... Horus Kol Talk 13:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. The most developed topic is the BSA area, but go for whatever you like.Rlevse 14:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I have made some suggestions for topics at User:Horus Kol/Possible Scouting Featured Topics - feel free to make changes. Horus Kol Talk 23:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Erm

It may not have been your intention, but you removed a large quantity of information from Our Chalet. You know the drill, I assume. Logical2uReview me! 21:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

see my response on your talk page. If you notice, I wrote most of the article.Rlevse 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I did indeed notice that you were doing most of the last edits (I figured either A: you were messing around, testing other people's reactions, or B: testing stuff) Good luck (Hope it's not simply an unclosed ref tag) Logical2uReview me! 21:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

I don't want to second-guess you, but is there a reason why you deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alberto Nisi after closing it? It seems as though the AfD was deleted but the article wasn't, so I've re-instated the former and deleted the latter, which I imagine is what you were trying to do in the first place. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If I deleted the afd vice the article, yes it was a mere goof, sorry and thanks for catching it.Rlevse 10:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Tin Tun

Why did you revert the edits on the above article? neither Ye Htoon nor Min Ko Naing are scouts and therefore "see also" sections does not apply to them. Please stick your edits to Wikipedia policy. Okkar 20:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

See also section applies to all aspects of the article, not just one and the fact that the portal tag is there, which is where it's supposed to be, does not matter.Rlevse 21:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, it stated that "Related topics should be grouped by subject area for ease of navigation. Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent" - therefore the appropiate relevances should be explained. In this case, no explanations were made nor provided, instead the article tries to mislead Min Ko Naing and Ye Htoon as scouts. This seems to me is a deliberate attempt to draw attention of particular user base (in this case - scouting fans) to politically motivated causes which has no relevance whatsoever with Wikipedia. Therefore, unless proper explanations are added according to Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, the "See Also" section of this article should be removed. Okkar 22:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


Also it is interesting to note what you said above "I will abstain from participating in any contested article or wiki issue in an administrative aspect, not just Scouting ones, in which I am personally involved.", however, your involvement with Tin Tun article appears to betray your statement above. While I am not accusing nothing improper on your part, I cant help but noticing the coincident according to Chris's comments on talk pages and then your sudden involvement out of no where. I would appericiate a brief explanation from you regarding that. Okkar 22:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have not invoked or used any admin tools or privileges on this issue, nor will I. Therefore, on this case I'm just a regular user and will remain so.. Chris and I agreeing is no different from you and another like-minded editor agreeing. There are many cases on wiki of portal tags being in see also with unrelated links. See also is generally only split into sections when several links are involved, not just 2 or 3.Rlevse 00:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
If that is the case, why was my edits were reverted using Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also as the reason? This to me is using Wikipedia's guide to confuse other editors. Okkar 09:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Dropping by

Hi there. So how is being an admin? Nice to see that you are still active in GA review and Scouting while learning the ropes. — ERcheck (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

response on your page.Rlevse 09:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR on the Noticeboard questions...

Hello,

On behalf of all of us, thank you for getting involved. I am wondering, am I blocked from editing as well, or can we go and actually edit the article to what the user kept removing? I am unsure of the policy in this situation and do not want to cause an issue.

Regards, Snickerdo 03:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You weren't blocked, so you can keep editing.Rlevse 09:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the user page revert. How's life and your admin mop been working out for you? — Rebelguys2 talk 05:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been okay, very interesting and learn a lot about inner wiki workings. Mostly afd, 3RR, AIV, and attack and nonsense speedy deletes.Rlevse 09:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Lethbridge Collegiate Institute

Replied to your GA review. PhoenixTwo 20:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Donorman block

I think the 48 hour block is a bit lite. This is my opinion, but every time he was warned it only fueled him to attack those that warned him. Look at his contribs, he went ballistic blanking pages and adding information in swarms of like 300K in size. It's my opinion that in 48 hours he's going to return to continue this "fight" of his.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I respect your opinion. I almost went a week. If you see him do it again and I'm online, let me know directly and I'll go either 1 week or 1 month. The reason I didn't do it this time is he hasn't been blocked before. Many vandals stop after once, they then know we will block them.Rlevse 14:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll be sure to let you know if something happens. I appreciate the response and respect your decision.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You said to mention to you if "Donorman" returned, well, as soon as the block was finished he did this to Arcayne. It may not be enough to block again, but, as I feared, he returned as soon as it was over. I also believe that Areasbroke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is his sock puppet, based on the recent vandalism to my page and Arcaynes.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone else blocked Areasbroke, indefinite, and I blocked the IP for a week (it's a school IP).Rlevse 12:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, they didn't leave a message stating it, so I thought that he just left for a few hours. I understand about the school IP. I'd take the liberty of calling the school and informing them of persistant vandalism, but I don't think I want to pay a long distance charge to the United Kingdom, especially if they put me on hold. lol. Thanks for your help though. 12:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing barnstar

Did you ask Djmckee1 if he was ambirch1? I'll talk to Djmckee1 about it. Please let us have the conversation before taking any action on removing the scouting Barnstar. I will let you know about the results. If he is it is nothing major I mean neither have done anything harmful, maybe the know each other in real life anyways, Thank you for your concern. Bloddyfriday 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply regarding 3RR on 11:11 (numerology)

Thanks for asking the question regarding my 3RR report about that article. I posted a reply on the nomination. TheRingess (talk) 01:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Bongo (antelope)

Hi there, the above article is on fac status again. I've really tried to change all the things you commented on. Please can you hgelp with the inline citations as I'm new to this and I can't seem to get that correct? Please can you look it over again? Thanks so much for your help. Black Stripe 01:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my 3RR blockage on Democracy

I am not sure if you care, but what is going on in the entry Democracy is that a single user - the same one that has "reported" me - has self-designated himself the de-facto owner of the entry. For months he (or she) has been reverting every attempt by others to edit the entry. While that user sometimes makes a show of discussing things with others he does not make any good faith attempt to achieve compromise and eventually, by simply keeping at it, reverts the entry to his favorite content.

I would suggest that the approriate action here is to block that user for an extended period from making edits to Democracy, and giving others a chance to make some changes. --Drono 03:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If such is the case, then you take the case to mediation or ANI, with a full report of the details.Rlevse 09:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Unlike the other editor involved in this case, I have no personal agenda here and I have no particular intention of taking any more steps on this issue. I don't see why I have to waste my time writing up an argument for something that any objective observer can find out for himself (or herself) by spending 15 minutes looking at the history of the entry.
Your administration policy is wrongheaded if it mandates that you block me based on some formal rule instead of simply examining the facts and taking the action that results in better content for Wikipedia. Up to you. --Drono 02:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe

Re: IDontThinkYou'reCapableOfBlockingThisName, I guess he was wrong. —dgiestc 18:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Our Chalet

Hi Rlvese, just to let you know I did read the article... it's borderline as to whether or not it is a GA... it could probably be passed, but I do have some concerns that prevent me from passing it straight up... unfortunately, I am super busy right now and didn't have time to make notes for revisions... which is why I didn't post this on the articles talk page. I'll try to take a closer look at it this weekend and make some concrete comments.Balloonman 07:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

removing barnstar part 2

I have done an Investigation the best I could, I Kept coming up with way to many simularities like the fact both names end with 1, also all history on both talk pages has them very seldom saying what the edit on their pages were and they both have a family of scouts. I just wanted to defend him that was all... however the evidence is stacked against him being the same person. Just remove the barnstar, I can't do it, it feels wrong to me. Anyways, he didn't do anything wrong, now if that account starts vandalizing stuff we can quiz both of them. If it comes to that I'll explain my plan on that. I highly doubt it would come to that. Bloddyfriday 16:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: 3RR on David Barton

Your response to this was:

page protection, both seem to reverting the other.Rlevse 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I have only reverted Bwallace07 twice (starting only after Bwallace07's second reversion of my changes), do not have a long history of reverts on this page (by contrast Bwallace07 has: 14:24, 13 March 2007, 15:44, 26 February 2007, 16:26, 12 February 2007, 02:46, 12 February 2007, 11 February 2007), have been attempting to make meaningful changes rather than only reflexively reverting, and have been attempting to discuss my proposed changes (and concerns about unsourced material) on the article's Talk page.

Yet your decision, although probably well-meaning, has had the sole effect of rewarding Bwallace07 by protecting from further changes the version of the page that Bwallace07 was reverting in order to protect.

This strikes me as somewhat counter-productive. Hrafn42 03:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's only a 24 hour block. And yes, all my admin actions are well-meaning.Rlevse 09:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
What this has taught me is that reporting 3RR violation is basically pointless, and that I would have been better off to have continued reverting instead, as (a) I could have made another revert without having violated 3RR, and (b) even if I had exceeded 3RR thereafter, I would still have been the revert-warrior with fewer reverts & so have gotten off with a lesser punishment, and have stood a better chance of having my version being the one frozen in place by a protection if the Admins eventually intervened. Is this the message Admins wish to be sending?
As things stand, I see no point whatsoever in attempting to make further contributions to David Barton, as Bwallace07 clearly has the intention of reverting anything new, leading to a choice between (a) letting their reverts stand (in which case the contributions are wasted), or (b) getting into another revert war with Bwallace07. Their willingness to revert all new content (even in violation of 3RR) gives them de facto ownership of David Barton and a veto over any new content, a veto they have repeatedly employed. Hrafn42 13:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me crystalise my first point above: Was Bwallace07 better off for having violated 3RR? Unambiguously yes (he got exactly what he wanted). Would I have been better off for having violated 3RR myself? An only slightly ambiguous yes. Is this a problem for those who think that getting people to obey 3RR is a good idea? Unambiguously yes. But hey, that's your problem not mine -- I can just vote with my feet. :) Hrafn42 14:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
As one of the long-time editors, and on David Barton I would like to point out that BWallace07 as well as many of the other pro-Barton editors appear to be one-purpose editors if not outright sockpuppets of Barton himself. I would like Rlevse to consider the history of this article. Many independent editors have tried to remove the POV language only to be reverted by BWallace07 and his single-purpose editors. How do we resolve this? Wjhonson 16:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Socks need to be reported via WP:SOCK. If he continues revert wars when this expires, let me know personally and I will block only him. Mediation and WP:ANI are options too.Rlevse 17:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
BWallace07 is back to his old tricks, reverting well-sourced material, and even deleting an old and uncontroversial contribution on Barton's teaching career, without any discussion.[16] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hrafn42 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Warning placed on BWallace07's Talk page. Is it permissible to revert BWallace07's deletions? Or would this be considered further escalation of the Edit War? Hrafn42 16:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Feeder (band)

Hi!,

I just realised that you review the articles for GA status, regarding music topics, and am wondering what you think of the article concerned. I hope to bring it up to GA status and go from there :-).

If there are any problems, could you if possible please list them?.

Cheers!

Marcus Bowen 19:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you've answered the issues on the talk page, then I think all you need for a successful GA run is to fix the Discography section. Why is it only a main link. It at least needs a summary or combined into another section. Actually, though, I'm not a music specialist.Rlevse 20:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:OurChalet.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:OurChalet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. IvoShandor 07:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)IvoShandor 07:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

GA review

World Chief Guide, I don't know what it is, and suspect anyone outside of the world of scouting wouldn't either, thus it is jargon, it should be explained. As for the image, it isn't a matter of finding it, it's a matter of going there and taking one, the image could easily be created by someone who went there, that may not be you or I. Good luck with the article. IvoShandor 10:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I am not joking, though I don't think you seriously think I am. As long as this building exists a free use replacement is easily creatable. Maybe not in by you, wherever you might be. Just watch. This image will very likely get deleted. Nothing against your article or anything. I learned this lesson in the exact same way. IvoShandor 10:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This: Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia. is the relevant part of WP:FU, note it does not say images that can reasonably be replaced by User:Rlevse. IvoShandor 10:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
But it wouldn't be unreasonable for a Wikipedian in Switzerland or visiting Switzerland, it's not an uncommonly visited place by any means. As for the current interpretation of fair use, that is up for debate, personally I am all for free as in libre, not free as in beer, just my personal opinion. I do wish you luck with the article as I found it an interesting topic and will continue to monitor its progress, as I tend to when I do GA reviews (I like knowing that maybe I had a part in making an article better). : ) IvoShandor 11:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If I can get my scanner working (that could be a while though... :( ), I'll see about getting you some pictures of Our Chalet. I must have some lying around here somewhere, considering the number of scenery, etc. pictures I took when I stayed there. -Bbik 04:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Either way, that is great to hear, as images are always better than no images. I figured someone might have one laying around. : ) IvoShandor 04:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Our Chalet/World Centers

The thing is, they really shouldn't be mentioned in the intro. It should mention that it's one of four, but that's about it -- the article itself doesn't discuss the other four at all, they don't deserve a (long) sentence and then some in the intro. However, I'll let the See also list be, until I (or you or someone else) fixes the intro. I stand by the quick explanation for Gilwell Park, though. The name doesn't make it immediately obvious what the link is (aside from a park of some description, which on its own is only loosely related anyhow), and even the page itself isn't very good about that, which is exactly why I removed it -- it looked to me to be just some generic Scout campground. I'd see if I could clarify that one a bit too, but considering the argument that apparently has already happened at least once regarding whether it should be "Boy Scout" or "Scouting", further confused by (apparently) the lack of gender differentiation in England, I refuse to touch it.

Also, I've added a lot of questions to Our Chalet, which could really help explain and organize some parts.
-Bbik 22:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

thank you for the good edits, but I don't agree about the other centers moving out of the lead. I'll get to the questions soon.Rlevse 22:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It makes no difference to me whether you answer here or on my page, but can you stick to one? It'll get incredibly confusing very fast if responses (beyond a (non-vital) basic "Response on my page" type comment) are split between the two.
Beyond that, could let me know when you're done answering the questions? Overlapping edits are no fun, and easily avoided.
-Bbik 23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I need to get to work now, I'll see what I more I can do later. (Also, I responded to the Awards bit on my page... Wasn't thinking when I did it.) -Bbik 19:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I just reworked the intro a little. How's that sound to you? It still mentions the other centers, but without taking up nearly as much space, since they're not at all the focus of the article. I don't know whether the page is GA quality now or not, probably not, but it's certainly a lot closer than it was. I'm not sure I can do any more for it at this point, but if I come across something or figure out a way to fix the remaining comments, I'll help where I can. -Bbik 03:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)