User talk:Rlevse/Archive 9
 | 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Hello Rlevse (and happy new year) - I wasn't around to comment on this sockpuppet case when you handled it and it's now a bit stale, but I'd appreciate it if you had a look at my comments at WT:SSP#How to deal with reports violating AGF and User talk:Alex Makedon#My comments. Thanks, Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your point, but both the Alex accounts had issues--the new one did not have a "clean slate". I've seen others try to hide their histories (for one the Rambutan/Porcupine/Circuit Judge cases) and get accounts blocked, leaving one open. This is precisely what this looked like to me and deception is disruptive and hence blockable. If Alex convinces you he is sincere and agrees to both linking the user pages and 1 sec block log entries to link the logs, that's okay with me even though the problem with leaving both usable when they both have problematic histories is that it defeats the whole purpose of WP:SOCK, following this logic, they could have a multitude of socks that they could keep using. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks and best wishes
Randy,
Many thanks for the Barnstar, for which I am deeply appreciative. It is truly a privilege to participate on the Scouting WikiProject and I am glad to be a small part of it. Best wishes to you in the New Year, Jim. 
JGHowes talk - 18:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thai translation for Veropedia
Hello, I can help on that. Can you tell me how do you pronounce "vero" ? --Manop - TH (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- If the word "vero" pronounced as "arrow" with v, I might go for แวโรพีเดีย. However Thai people might read Veropedia as แวโรพีเดีย (vae-ro), เวโรพีเดีย (vey-ro) or วีโรพีเดีย (vee-ro) though. The translation starts here. -->
แวโรพีเดียคืออะไร ?
แวโรพีเดียคืออะไร? แวโรพีเดียคือสารานุกรมที่กลุ่มชาววิกิพีเดียร่วมกันสร้าง ซึ่งได้ทำการเลือกเนื้อหาที่ดีที่สุดจากวิกิพีเดียมาปัดฝุ่น ปรับแก้รูปแบบ และทำการเซฟเก็บไว้ไม่มีการแก้ไขเพิ่มเติม เพื่อทำให้เนื้อหามีความนิ่ง สมบูรณ์และน่าเชื่อถือจากทุกคนโดย คณาจารย์ และนักเรียน นำข้อมูลที่สมบูรณ์และเชื่อถือได้ไปใช้ได้ทันที
แวโรพีเดียเป็นโครงการที่แยกออกมาจากวิกิพีเดียหรือไม่? ไม่ถูกต้องซะทีเดียว เนื้อหาแวโรพีเดียตั้งอยู่บนฐานของเนื้อหาวิกิพีเดีย ซึ่งการปรับปรุงแวโรพีเดียนั้นคุณจำเป็นต้องร่วมแก้ไขวิกิพีเดียก่อน ซึ่งจะเห็นได้ว่าทางเราไม่ได้แข่งขันกับวิกิพีเดีย ความสำเร็จของเราจะขึ้นอยู่กับความสำเร็จของวิกิพีเดีย ซึ่งทางเราคิดว่าตัวเราเองเปรีบเสมือนเป็นชั้นแรกของความรู้เสรีที่ดึงข้อโดดเด่นของวิกิพีเดียออกมา
แล้วเว็บนี้เป็นเพียงแค่เว็บมิรเรอร์เว็บกระจกเงาของวิกิพีเดีย? แน่นอนว่าไม่ใช่! เนื้อหาทั้งหมดในแวโรพีเดียนั้นจำเป็นต้องผ่านเกณฑ์ที่เข้มงวด ซึ่งบทความทั้งหมดจะไม่มีป้ายเก็บกวาด ป้ายต้องการอ้างอิง การลิงก์ไปที่ลิงก์ไม่มีเนื้อหา หรือแม้แต่ภาพที่ใช้งานอย่างชอบธรรม โดยมากไปกว่านั้น ในแต่ละบทความจะมีการตรวจสอบโดยผู้เชี่ยวชาญและนักวิชาการในแต่ละสาขา และจะประทับตราบอกไว้ว่าผ่านการตรวจแล้ว พร้อมทั้งคำแนะนำในการปรับปรุงบทความ ซึ่งวิธีการนี้จะทำให้บทความน่าเชื่อถือยิ่งขึ้น
แล้วอย่างนี้จะเป็นโครงการสำหรับนักวิชาการและผู้เชี่ยวชาญเหมือนกับ ซิติเซนเดียม? ไม่ใช่แน่นอน เนื้อหาของแวโรพีเดียจะถูกเขียนขึ้นโดยผู้สนับสนุนจากวิกิพีเดีย โดยนักวิชาการและผู้เชี่ยวชาญจะมีหน้าที่ในการตรวจสอบและยืนยันว่าถูกต้อง โดยผู้เชี่ยวชาญจะให้คำแนะนำเพื่อปรับปรุงในวิกิพีเดียต่อไป ถ้ามองในทางกลับกันแล้ว จะเหมือนเป็นการร่วมมือระหว่างแวโรพีเดียและวิกิพีเดีย
บทความในแวโรพีเดียสามารถปรับปรุงได้หรือไม่? แน่นอน ซึ่งการปรับปรุงในแวโรพีเดียนี้จะเริ่มต้นที่วิกิพีเดีย ซึ่งการปรับปรุงใหม่ในวิกิพีเดียจะถูกนำเข้ามามาในแวโรพีเดียอีกต่อหนึ่ง ซึ่งจะทำให้ทั้งสองโครงการได้รับเนื้อหาที่มีคุณภาพสูงขึ้นพร้อมกัน
แวโรพีเดียมีเนื้อหาทั้งหมดของวิกิพีเดียหรือไม่? ไม่ใช่ ในความเป็นจริงในระยะแรกของแวโรพีเดียจะมีเพียงส่วนน้อยเท่านั้น ซึ่งแวโรพีเดียเติบโตทุกวันโดยจะเริ่มมีเนื้อหาหลักที่จำเป็นในส่วนของสารานุกรมที่จะมีประโยชน์ต่อคณาจารย์และนักเรียน จุดมุ่งหมายของเราคือปรับปรุงคุณภาพของบทความมาก่อนปริมาณบทความ
ลิงก์สีเขียวและลิงก์สีน้ำเงินคืออะไร? ลิงก์สีเขียวในบทความแสดงถึงบทความที่มีในแวโรพีเดียและได้จัดการ "แวโรไฟ" เรียบร้อยแล้ว ซึ่งข้อความเหล่านั้นได้ถูกเก็บไว้ในฐานข้อมูลเรียบร้อย สำหรับลิงก์ที่ยังไม่มีในแวโรพีเดียจะแสดงเป็นลิงก์สีน้ำเงินซึ่งจะโยงไปเนื้อหาในวิกิพีเดียแทนที่ ซึ่งคุณสามารถกดแบ็กสเปซเพื่อจะกลับมาแวโรพีเดียได้
ใครเป็นผู้ร่วมจัดทำ? ผู้ร่วมจัดทำแวโรพีเดียเราได้เลือกจากชาววิกิพีเดียที่มีประสบการณ์การเขียนการแก้ไขในวิกิพีเดียจำนวนมาก ซึ่งเป็นที่รู้จักกันดีและมีชื่อเสียงในวิกิพีเดีย ซึ่งทางเราหวังว่าจะชักชวนชาววิกิพีเดียที่สนใจเพิ่มเติมเข้ามาช่วยพัฒนาโครงการ
ทำไมถึงไม่ให้มีภาพที่ใช้งานอย่างชอบธรรม? ประเด็นการใช้งานอย่างชอบธรรมในวิกิพีเดียมักจะเป็นปัญหาร้อนที่เกิดขึ้นบ่อย ซึ่งทางเราตัดสินใจที่จะเลี่ยงปัญหานั้น และมุ่งประเด็นไปที่เนื้อหาเสรีมาเป็นอย่างแรก โดยสนับสนุนให้ทุกคนเปลี่ยนกระแสนิยมการสงวนลิขสิทธิ์มาเป็นการเผยแพร่เสรีสู่สาธารณะ
ถ้าพบข้อผิดพลาดในแวโรพีเดียละ? กรุณาแจ้งให้เรารู้โดยการส่งอีเมลมาและทางเราจะแก้ไขให้เร็วที่สุด ซึ่งรวมถึงเนื้อหารวมถึงภาพและสื่อที่ไม่อนุญาตให้ใช้งานอย่างเสรี
ทำไมแวโรพีเดียถึงมีโฆษณา? จุดมุ่งหมายของเราคือการรวบรวมเนื้อหาเสรีที่ดีที่สุดและเปิดให้ทุกคนสามารถใช้งานได้อย่างเสรีซึ่งวิธีนี้จำเป็นต้องใช้เงินจำนวนหนึ่ง ทางเราไม่มีเจตนาที่จะขอเงินบริจาคจากกลุ่มเป้าหมายเราซึ่งก็คือ อาจารย์และนักเรียน และเราเชื่อว่าการโฆษณาที่ไม่รบกวนผู้ใช้เป็นทางออกที่ดีที่สุด เงินทั้งหมดที่ได้จะใช้สำหรับปรับปรุงบทความและเก็บเนื้อหารวมถึงค่าดูแลที่จะทำให้มีการปรับปรุงโครงการให้เกิดประโยชน์สูงสุด
แวโรพีเดียมีเฉพาะในภาษาอังกฤษหรือไม่? แวโรพีเดียเริ่มต้นจากภาษาอังกฤษโดยกลุ่มคนจากวิกิพีเดียภาษาอังกฤษ ซึ่งเนื้อหาในภาษาอื่นจะมีเพิ่มเติมเข้ามาในภายหลัง
จะมีส่วนร่วมกับแวโรพีเดียได้อย่างไร? กรุณาส่งอีเมลมาหาเราและแนะนำตัวเอง เล่าเรื่องราวเกี่ยวกับตัวคุณและผลงานที่ได้ทำในด้านของความรู้เสรี อย่างไรก็ตามทางเราวางแผนขยายชุมชนอย่างช้า ๆ ซึ่งอาจจะมีสมาชิกใหม่เพียงหนึ่งหรือสองคนต่อวัน หวังว่าคุณอดทนรอการตอบรับจากทางเรา ในขณะเดียวกันคุณยังคงสามารถปรับปรุงวิกิพีเดียและแจ้งทางเราว่าคุณต้องการบทความไหนที่คุณคิดว่าควรจะรวมเข้าสู่แวโรพีเดีย
ร่วมแปลคำถามและข้อสงสัยในหน้านี้ในภาษาอื่น กรุณาติดต่อเราได้
แวโรพีเดียพัฒนาบนพื้นฐานของวิกิพีเดียสารานุกรมเสรี เนื้อหาทั้งหมดสามารถนำไปใช้ได้ภายใต้ สัญญาอนุญาตเอกสารเสรีของกนู
<- the translation ends here. --Manop - TH (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification, which was much appreciated. Since I have never dealt with an arbitration, I am unsure as to what I'm meant to do. Do I have to re-submit my statement? It may sound like a silly question, but thanks for your time. Also, am I classed as "an involved party"? I'm merely curious. Thanks once again. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
?
Sorry for bothering you (again! :)), but can I ask whether you'll be doing the initial nomination when the RFA comes? It's just, if you're not, I'll know who to pick to do the co-nominations then. Best regards, Rt. 21:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll do it if you want, I'd decided to leave it up to you. I'd suggest at most 2 co-noms. Crazy as it seems, some object when there are a lot of co-noms. Still shooting for the 7th? Remind me. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- :) Yeah. 2 it is. Rt. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll do it then. Remind me on the 6th. You are you thinking of for co noms? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm thinking Ioeth and Ryan Postlethwaite, they're probably the most underrated out of all my offerers (if thats a word) and they do excellent work, right across the namespaces. The others, Phoenix-wiki, OhanaUnited and Dihydrogen Monoxide, all have either prior workloads here on the wiki or off or are engaged in other matters, but I appreciate their opinion nevertheless. I'm still reeling from the fact that so many editors have actually offered me adminship. :) Rt. 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, I know you probably won't be ready but I could I transclude the RFA later tonight? It's that somethings come up and I won't realistically be able to edit that much for the next week or two. So I need to do it now whilst I can. Apologies for any inconvenience this may cause. Best regards, Rt. 18:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm thinking Ioeth and Ryan Postlethwaite, they're probably the most underrated out of all my offerers (if thats a word) and they do excellent work, right across the namespaces. The others, Phoenix-wiki, OhanaUnited and Dihydrogen Monoxide, all have either prior workloads here on the wiki or off or are engaged in other matters, but I appreciate their opinion nevertheless. I'm still reeling from the fact that so many editors have actually offered me adminship. :) Rt. 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll do it then. Remind me on the 6th. You are you thinking of for co noms? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- :) Yeah. 2 it is. Rt. 21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost WikiProject Report
Hey Rlevse! This week, I'm writing the Signpost WikiProject Report on WikiProject Scouting, which I noticed you coordinate. So, I am going to ask you a few questions concerning the project :)
- What is the best way for users unfamiliar with Scouting topics or new to Wikipedia to get involved in the project?
- A: To sign up here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/Members#Active and participate actively in articles and talk pages associated with the project.
- Are there any ongoing discussions pertaining to project issues or articles in the project's scope?
- A: See WP:SCOUT but nothing really major right now, but we are planning an effort to get some articles to FA during Jan-Feb.
- What are the departments of the project?
- A: We have task forces for Girl Guide and Girl Scout and Philmont Scout Ranch. We also have people coordinating our areas in :
Lead coordinator: Rlevse Article improvement: Wimvandorst Project mediation: Bduke Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting Task Force: Kingbird Philmont Scout Ranch Task Force: Johntex Image tagging: B
- What are some of the project's most recent achievements?
- A: In Nov 2007 I became an approved uploader for Veropedia and have uploaded our better articles. Our better articles are shown here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Article showcase. Also see WP:SCOUT--which lists our admins, major tasks, etc, we have a "todo" page too.
- How can project members be recognized for outstanding contributions?
- A: We have awards, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Recognitions, I just awarded two barnstars today.
Zeraeph ARB
Why was the case name changed? I think this is quite unfortunate. No one suggested it. Marskell (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Threats from Pgagnon999
This is where Pgagnon999 started with a threat to report someone to their system admisinstrator.
With regard to Middletown, Connecticut, your removal of the Neutrality tag constitutes conflict of interest as your IP address is a state website. If you would like to dispute the tag, please open a discussion on the talk page for the article. Otehrwise, you'll end up on the Wiki list of organizations/ agencies that self edit--a pretty embarassing place to be. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This is where he was engaged in further activity to intimidate a poster: Also interesting is a history of edits from user at the Connecticut gov. (Middletown gov?) state IP address and a seemingly related Wesleyan Univeristy IP. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This vicious and underhanded behavior is threatening and abusive.
He does not engage in civil behavior, he deletes QUOTED material and then posts garbage from lame sites that support his narrow and partisan beliefs. ---That's nasty behavior. And astonishing to me that you support him in it.
He's pushing point of view, he's violated neutrality, he's deleted referenced material, he's certainly does not assume good faith. I mean, he's out there attacking people and all but terrorizing them. And that's the guy you've put your support behind. Great.
Arb Z-SG open
See my diffs, there were a couple of minor errors in your case open. You didn;t include the arbs votes to accept in the preliminary decision section, and evidence of prior dispute resolution is used by the arbs to decide whether to hear a case but it does not become part of the case once opened. (Unless someone wants to put it on the evidence page--but it does not go on the main page). Otherwise a successful start. Thatcher 04:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DogCare E back.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DogCare E back.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DogCare E front.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DogCare E front.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ForageCrops G back.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ForageCrops G back.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:ForageCrops G front.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:ForageCrops G front.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Lead(II) nitrate pic
Thanks for thinking of moving the Lead(II) nitrate picture to Commons: good idea. I saw that it has a different name there. Is that temporary, part of the moval procedure, or should we re-link to the new picturename in the article? Wim van Dorst (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC).
- There was an image on COmmons with the same name already, but of a lower resolution, so I had to give the better image a new name. The article should pick up the new name automatically. I'm an admin on Commons too, so unless someone beats me to it, I'll look into this tonight. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
I want to thank you for the Scouting barnstar. I also say thanks that you informed me about the article in The Wikipedia Signpost.Yours in Scouting-Phips (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Sturmtrupp-Pfadfinder
From the to-do list: I created the article (mostly translation of the German article): User:Phips/workshop/Sturmtrupp-Pfadfinder, take I look. Should I move it? Yours in Scouting-Phips (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
ongoing incivility
Normally when I see edits like this I would report them to WP:WQA, but in this case, the user is already under an active block for uncivil behavior. What is the correct course of action in this case? Dlabtot (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you feel there has been a violation and a user is under arbcom restrictions, report it to arbcom enforcement. There is a link at the top of WP:RFAR. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is related too Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#help_sought. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you feel there has been a violation and a user is under arbcom restrictions, report it to arbcom enforcement. There is a link at the top of WP:RFAR. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration
Hello Rlevse, I was wondering if I could become your "clerk apprentice" for the Arbitration Committee. If you have too many clerks or whatever, please decline, but I'd like to learn more about and help with the Arbitration Committee, and you're an excellent clerk. Thanks. Regards, Keilanatalk(recall) 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Post at WP:AC/C. They just "Hired" 2 of 4 requests, so it is kind of full right now, but you should let them know you're interested. It's up to the arb committee by the way, not the clerks, on who becomes clerks. But if and when you do become a clerk helper, I'd be glad too. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
For this USN CNO/DESA recipient: I see you have already edited this one. However, it might need a Scouting portal link. It does need some expansion/cleanup. I've added a few references, but it could use some more attention. — ERcheck (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
HollywoodFan1
HollywoodFan1 responded to your request for explanation of their actions, by stating “I don't need to explain anything, because I am not MetaphorEnt.“[1]. I think this reinforces the need for block of MetaphorEnt and HollywoodFan1. No further action occurred in regards to the report and it was archived. As you are an administrator, could you block the accounts or do I need to file another incident report? BlueAzure (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- File and SSP with the IP and MetaphorEnt listed, mention the ANI thread, link to its archived location. Link to the RFCU that shows they're the same. Let me know when you're done. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I filed the case at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/MetaphorEnt, I think that I included everything that you requested. BlueAzure (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- File and SSP with the IP and MetaphorEnt listed, mention the ANI thread, link to its archived location. Link to the RFCU that shows they're the same. Let me know when you're done. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
A query
Hello Rlevse, I noticed that you actively involved in WP:SSP and you have a lot of experience there. I had filled a case, however there are no further developments. Could you please suggest that I should do next, fill a WP:RCU? Your advise would be much appreciated. M.K. (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Rejected cases?
Hey there.
Not sure I quite understand your message about archiving rejected cases: was this general guidance or did I mess something up when I archived BlueAzure? Because I had archived it [2]. — Coren (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Horsing around
Hmm...this newness, source and interpretation for this criteria does seem a bit mysterious, and the thirteen new tags look a tad bit pointy eared to me. Dreadstar † 16:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Per this post I have decided to notify about the case as you were an administrators active on Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. -- Cat chi? 20:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
User:PJHaseldine
Hi, you recently assisted in a sock puppet and COI case: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/PJHaseldine (sock puppets blocked indef and user blocked 1 week for COI). This user has now posted extracts and linked to an external discussion on wikipedia review.com on an article talk page: diff. He assumes bad faith by accussing myself and other editors of "concerted attacks" and "attempts to censor wikipedia" (also the heading of this new talk page section) and even labled us "pro-apartheid". I didn't respond to it, save for posting a warning to his talk page, but this copied external discussion and link is worrying (searching internet for my name and suggesting I'm an apartheid era military officer etc.). I don't know if this can be removed or how to proceed... it's an article's talk discussion page afterall. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. — Deon Steyn (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I gave a warning, let me know if he does it again. There is a big debate about sites like WR and what can be posted here. However, links and pastes from ED can be removed on sight. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help! — Deon Steyn (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I gave a warning, let me know if he does it again. There is a big debate about sites like WR and what can be posted here. However, links and pastes from ED can be removed on sight. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
(repeat of my post on article talk page...)
Instead of following your advice, PJHaseldine has now pasted the same passage and external link on the talk pages of his three banned sock puppet accounts. [3], [4], [5]. — Deon Steyn (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- See that article talk page and his talk page. Keep me informed. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the assistance, there is a typo in the diff for your last post here: User talk:PJHaseldine#Final warning (remove very last duplicate 8 in url) so that it is diff — Deon Steyn (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The RFA
She has asked not to have her name posted on wiki so I won't do it ... but she didn't even use RTV. She just had a regular rename just like I did. She has one account, not two accounts. There are a few (under 10) admins that have abandoned their old account and come back under a new name and had that new name sysopped, but that's not what happened here. If you look at her earliest contributions, you see her old signature. This RFA process is so silly it's beyond words - there are plenty of admins who have been renamed and to suggest that we should go through RFA again is just an open invitation for trolling. --B (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
laugh out loud
Blocking company/group names
Wikipedia:Username_policy#Company/group_names has said this for a while: "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on circumstances may be seen as a problem."
You seem to be back to username blocking, and blocking users simply for having a company or group name. What are the circumstances, in your opinion, that make them blockable? (I would only block if they are using that name to make promotional edits.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that they actually make edits--I just checked again; you and 1=2 just had a revert exchange over this. You must be talking about the two today, which match web addresess and that makes it a promotional name, gee "if my username matches my website I'll get more traffic". The username policy gets edited a lot, it would help if it were stable. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Total Envy
I'm so jealous of your Aug 07 BSA beer award! Forget all the stars, that award is a real award for good work. When your buddy hands you that cold one, you know what I mean.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 20:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
130
Yep, that's one up again. Congrats. I think you can easily throw in those remaining 8k edits needed to come in the top 100, right? ;-) Gladly I'm just over 11k edits (not yet Kate's count), so I'm out of the danger zone to fall 'higher' than #2000. Wim van Dorst (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
Why?
i had a chance to rename my username thanks to BLACKKITE but before i could change it User:Rlevse blocked me, saying all i did was put 187 in it, it was already in it thats my original name User:Lil' kim187, i hadn't changed my username at all, thats what i needed to change was the Lil' kim187, so i want to know why User:Rlevse blocked before i could change it. User_talk:Lil' kim187
- Oh yes, you did add "is back" not "187", which was already there. As for the block, as I said on your talk page, you have to pick the new name, make the request on your talk page, have an admin say "yes, that's an okay name", he'll unblock you, then you do nothing but make the name request until the new name is made. That is why. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Giovanni33
Thanks for the mutual warning. Its fair, and I didn't plan to revert, in any case; was waiting for another editor to help make consensus on the dispute clear.Giovanni33 (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Voceditenore
Hi, I've left a response to your comment on the Nrswanson sockpuppetry case my talk page. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Just came across a request for unblock here. In the past (as I understand), ArbCom's topic-specific restrictions have been on article pages only, and editors so restricted were allowed to edit talk pages (unless this privelege was explicitly denied). Am I missing in either the ArbCom ruling here? Or am I misunderstanding the situation? (Either of which is more than possible). Because it does not look to me like TDC violated the ArbCom ruling. Pastordavid (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is not true now. I asked the head arb clerk and two arbs and talk pages are included unless they are exempted. On top of that look at the wording of the restriction, it's very broad, I pasted it on TDC's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Pastordavid (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is not true now. I asked the head arb clerk and two arbs and talk pages are included unless they are exempted. On top of that look at the wording of the restriction, it's very broad, I pasted it on TDC's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Block
Ahh, If you are seeing this, somebody unblocked me or just my school IPs are blocked. Tell me which one please --ジェイ ✉／✍ 17:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what IP your school is using, but it doesn't appear to be you. Hope this helps, Rudget. 18:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Cowboycaleb1
Thanks for closing the SSP case on him. There's another IP, look at 209.247.5.60's contributions. Might need a block for a month or so. It also might be worth extended the other IP blocks to do with this case to a month. Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
award
Why?
Regarding this, is he not still under his restrictions of only being allowed to edit at the related Arbcom case? He was told his original block was lifted so that he could participate in his related Arbcom case but not to edit anywhere else and doing so would result in him being blocked again. You blocked him again. Does your block now dissolve his original unblock stipulations? -- ALLSTARecho 17:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- See the discussion here--Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard. Please post there if you have input. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Warning
No problem. I wasn't intending to revert Giovanni next time in any case and would have reported him. I appreciate it that you were clear in your warning, though I fear Giovanni didn't take it fully to heart given his recent 24 hour block. John Smith's (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom enforcement
Thanky for taking the time to deal with the situation below - FYI -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#To_ban_or_not_to_ban
Cheers,
Rutgers
The category includes people who attended and never graduated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Returning
After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes!
Glad to see you back! --Oxymoron83 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back! Dlabtot (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, welcome back. I just watch you for the most part, but I appreciate that you are willing to dig into those very complicated situations and come out with good solutions. Not everyone could do that, and it makes you a rare commodity here. Cheers, NoSeptember 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks to all of you for your support. It means a lot. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yay! It's great to see you back. (and you caused an edit conflict... :P) Keilana|Parlez ici 19:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I
second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth-- too many edit conflicts! seventh that, glad you're back. I was disheartened to see you (and Rudget) go. You and I were having a "back and forth" regarding the whole "rudget" stuff where we were disagreeing on his talkpage. Please note I was not intending that to be any personal slight against you and I hope I didn't overstep any boundaries or assume bad faith, as it was not my intention. If my comments over that situation had anything to do with your decision to go, (they may or may not, I have no idea) please let me know so I can atone and apologize in the right places. Regardless of why you left, I'm glad you're back! I'm personally hoping Rudget is reading this and reconsidering as well. You are both fantastic WP'ns. Cheers, Keeper | 76 19:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)- I warmly welcome your return, and hope we'll see Rudget back as well. Too good to lose, IMO. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I
- I'm really happy for your return!!!! Welcome!!!--Appletrees (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Woo-hoo! Anthøny 19:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm really happy for your return!!!! Welcome!!!--Appletrees (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yay! Man, did I need a spirit-lifter right now :) Glad to see you're back. Wizardman 19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome back mate :) Orderinchaos 19:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Yea that's right. I've replied here. <--- READ IT! Lara❤Love 19:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Everyone needs a Wiki-break once in a while. There ARE people who will try your patience, aggravate you, and even cross you on purpose sometimes. But there are also many great editors out here, that will work with you, back you up, and DO appreciate all that you do. You have to take the bad with the good, and sometimes step back from the keyboard, breathe, count backwards from 1,000, and say "bubble" between each number. Remember this, along with the prime directive of the Wiki (NPOV), and you'll be fine. Edit Centric (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is great news! I'm glad you're back; I'd be lost :) And there's absolutely no shame in taking more (and longer) wikibreaks. — Edokter • Talk • 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Distant Man-made Navigable Waterway! said quickly." Nice to see you back. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Y'know - it's super news to see you back on here. This totally makes my day! You're an excellent admin and I know I certainly would miss you like crazy were you to leave the project. Welcome back :) - Alison ❤ 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to all again, I can't keep up with all these accolades (blushing). — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gah, don't scare me like that! Good to have you back, buddy. :) GlassCobra 21:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, next time you quit....can I have your beer award? I always loved that one. ;)--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 22:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back, yeah! You're greatly needed here and were sorely missed. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Glad you're back (-: ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep up your info!!!
Hi Randy, you'd better update your user page: your 123rd now on WP:WBE. Just 24 to go, and merely 4400 edits will take care of that. ;-) Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
Re:User page protection
Nice to see you back. I protected it mainly because, basically, if you said "I quit", then nobody else should change that until you came back. (For example, when RickK left, his userpage received basically no constructive edits but vandalism before he came back to protect it.) You can (obviously) go ahead and unprotect it if you want. jj137 ♠ 22:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Regard ANI
It appears the ANI case has been closed. What happens next with that case? Anthon01 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Good to have you back
If I may give some advice: drop ArbCom/ArbEnforcement, at least for a while. Go edit some articles. It helps :D
Great to see you again, my friend. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 23:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Admin Coaching
You sure? I'd hand the reins fully to you if that's what you want. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, team up gal. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, I'm busy uploading a whole mess of images to Commons (where I'm a clueless newbie...) so I may be a bit distracted until I upload the last 50 or so. :P Keilana|Parlez ici 00:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm an admin there too. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, ok, I'll poke you if I need anything. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm an admin there too. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, I'm busy uploading a whole mess of images to Commons (where I'm a clueless newbie...) so I may be a bit distracted until I upload the last 50 or so. :P Keilana|Parlez ici 00:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Catching up
Whoa, what did I miss? I came over to tell you I'm back in the saddle, and to ask you to unprotect my userpage now, and I see you took a break and have returned. I'm sorry I wasn't around to support and welcome you back ... some times on Wiki are real killers, huh? :/ Welcome back, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Boy Scouts and spanking (PR disaster)
You may wish to weigh in on this discussion, as the photographer whose work is being manipulated. - John Russ Finley (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, but there's really nothing to be done here. Many of my images have appeared all over the web. As for the content of that site, people will see it for what it is. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe is it time to swap that picture to one with Scouts that have fun doing something, getting muddy, pioneering, etc. Not just sitting and keeping their uniform clean. Some said about this picture, "if this is fun, then Scouting, specially the BSA, must be really boring" --Egel Reaction? 13:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
My concern is if they alter the images in a bad way. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sent email, posted this "The potential for abuse of images, making wiki look bad, condoning child porn here is huge. Please act, Jimbo. If such use is condoned, I will no longer submit images of children to wiki." — Rlevse • Talk • 22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Freedom is the right for people to be free to act the way they want to act. The free culture movement is about enabling people to create, modify, and distribute information as text, sounds, images, or video by providing copyleft software tools and content for modification and redistribution. It is not free if the uses are legally restricted to the original content creator's desired purposes. For that, you need to use a non-free copyright license. Wikipedia and WikiMedia have a mission of maximum worldwide free distribution of freely re-editable educational content. If one does not want content that they create to be legally free to be modified and redistributed for causes one does not personally endorse, then they should not contribute them to a free culture site such as wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Coaching
I know, sent me for a spin there, but I'm very glad you decided to stay. I figured it would only add to your stress to bug you about the coaching, and I really don't get the various off-wiki communications systems. Being co-coached by you and Keilana would be an honor and a real plus for me, since you both have varied interests and experiences. MBisanz talk 04:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back!
Too bad such a drastic move made us show our support, but at least you know our opinion now. Squash Racket (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Welcome back. You have the right to take a wiki-break whenever you want, not only after you are really f*up. --Egel Reaction? 14:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to have you back :) - Revolving Bugbear 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- What, you were gone? I'm glad you decided not to make it permanent :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Glad to have you back :) - Revolving Bugbear 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment about sockpuppet case you closed
I was wondering if you noticed this editor:[6]. Very few edits, and I think it's likely it's the same person that opened the sock case. The only edits by this user are to ask for help with a sock case, and he posted the case on my talk page. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted pages
Hi. Would you please paste copies of two deleted pages to my user space. I would like to address the concerns mentioned in the AfDs. They are KRC (Scientology) and ARC (Scientology). Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Rlevese if you're active now
I'm facing another sockpuppet 124.87.134.96 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) of the banned ip user 219.66.40.104 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), 219.66.45.131 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (in this time, different network host) now. Per the ip user's same writing style and interest (ex. Yujacha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views){Manhwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)_, I believe the user evades his sanction again (many 5~6 times?) Can you look into his contributions and block him? Thanks.. --Appletrees (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Admin coaching
Please can you give me some much needed admin coaching!! Ningnangnong (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Your sig code...
is a pain in my talk page's ass... and probably a lot of other people's talk pages too. But don't feel too bad, we only like you slightly less because of it. So here's the thing; I'm totally awesome, k? And I have a better code. Not only will it keep your sig from effing up the coding of any more pages, BUT it also is like a whole line shorter. The servers will love you... much more than they love me even, because a sig as beautiful as mine takes space, ya know? So here you go, you can thank me monetarily at a later time:
<font family=verdana> — [[User:Rlevse|<font color=#060>'''''R''levse'''</font>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<font color=#990>Talk</font>]] • </font>
Best regards, Lara❤Love 18:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
test here, just pasted here: — Rlevse • Talk •
test here with "raw" checked (with check it errors): <font family=verdana> — [[User:Rlevse|<font color=#060>'''''R''levse'''</font>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<font color=#990>Talk</font>]] (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Miscellaneous
Images are not showing up on any Wiki pages I open. Are you having this problem? Thoughts? Some toolbar button images are missing too. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 19:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, one of your images is being discussed at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Boy_Scouts_are_for_spanking.3F. --B (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I know, see the "Boy Scouts and spanking (PR disaster)" thread above. I took the pic, so yes I can release it. And no the boys aren't ID'd. Anything I need to do hear? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I guess if you're ok with it, it is what it is. What really irks me is that Wikia and Wikipedia are basically owned and operated by the same people and if Jimbo, as the head of Wikia, is going to allow Wikipedia content to be misused in this way, that's a concern. Suppose that people on Wikia start photoshopping Scouting images in compromise positions - which would be permitted under the GFDL. This kind of misuse is something that Wikia as a company needs to step in and do something about. --B (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- It should be noted such a picture(edit) would violate the SpankArt Wiki rules. --Roguebfl (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- [Spanking_Art:Image_use_policy#Pornography] Such an edited piture does get challenged as obscene . --Roguebfl (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- It should be noted such a picture(edit) would violate the SpankArt Wiki rules. --Roguebfl (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, now I see. What to do besides complain on Jimbo's talk page? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I guess if you're ok with it, it is what it is. What really irks me is that Wikia and Wikipedia are basically owned and operated by the same people and if Jimbo, as the head of Wikia, is going to allow Wikipedia content to be misused in this way, that's a concern. Suppose that people on Wikia start photoshopping Scouting images in compromise positions - which would be permitted under the GFDL. This kind of misuse is something that Wikia as a company needs to step in and do something about. --B (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Sent email, posted this "The potential for abuse of images, making wiki look bad, condoning child porn here is huge. Please act, Jimbo. If such use is condoned, I will no longer submit images of children to wiki." — Rlevse • Talk • 22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- How do you want him to act? This is sort of one consequence of releasing things under free licenses. It has nothing to do with Wikia and Wikipedia's relationship; I could start up a website myself and use the photo in exactly the same way. Jimbo might be concerned about the use of Wikia hosting to host that kind of wiki, but that has nothing to do with the Wikipedia community. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could and should are two different things. Even if Jimbo can use the image doesn't mean he should use the image. There are a lot of things in life that I can do, but I don't do them because they would be morally wrong. Using this image is morally wrong, even if the GFDL might permit its use. If Wikipedia stands in favor of child pornography and pedophilia, then I want no part of it ... because guess what - these kids in Scouting are far more important than making money for Jimbo Wales on Wikia. --B (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Jimbo's not using the image. Somebody else is, using Wikia server space. Would you be less upset if the people who started this wiki had exactly the same wiki, but were hosting it somewhere else? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Less upset? No, of course not. But that's a silly question - the reason I'm taking it up with Jimbo is that he is the owner/founder/whatever of the company using the imatge. If he weren't, then it wouldn't be a useful issue to raise here - I would take it up with whoever the site owner is. --B (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, that's fair. As long as you agree that this isn't a case of Jimbo/Wikia somehow abusing his/its connection to Wikipedia. What this wiki is doing - however reprehensible - is something anybody can do, since the photo was released under a free license. And now, Rlevse, I'll stop hijacking your talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Less upset? No, of course not. But that's a silly question - the reason I'm taking it up with Jimbo is that he is the owner/founder/whatever of the company using the imatge. If he weren't, then it wouldn't be a useful issue to raise here - I would take it up with whoever the site owner is. --B (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Jimbo's not using the image. Somebody else is, using Wikia server space. Would you be less upset if the people who started this wiki had exactly the same wiki, but were hosting it somewhere else? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could and should are two different things. Even if Jimbo can use the image doesn't mean he should use the image. There are a lot of things in life that I can do, but I don't do them because they would be morally wrong. Using this image is morally wrong, even if the GFDL might permit its use. If Wikipedia stands in favor of child pornography and pedophilia, then I want no part of it ... because guess what - these kids in Scouting are far more important than making money for Jimbo Wales on Wikia. --B (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, a Wikia staffer has blanked and protected the article until they decide what to do. [7] --B (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- good, — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently, she is an admin here too - CatherineMunro (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). --B (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- good, — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- See User:Gadget850/T1 and let me know what you think. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Best I can figure is to discuss this on the project, let folks know the issues and let them decide for themselves. Welcome back, eh? --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Please summarize and put on talk WP:SCOUT. One this is that commons photos of live or recently deceases should have "personality rights" tag like all mine now do: Image:World_Jamboree_2007_009.jpg. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was thinking about this today. We probably need to go so far as to have a project guideline recommending against uploading any photo depicting a personally identifiable youth without parental informed consent. We need to be careful about how it's structured so that it doesn't offend the "Wikipedia is not censored" crowd, but a simple reminder that BSA Youth protection policy forbids XYZ or the Guide to Safe Scouting forbids XYZ that is placed in the talk page headers of BSA-specific articles would be a good idea. There are PD-old photos of kids that are dead or at least in their 80s that we can use and we can use group photos that are zoomed out enough that you can't make out an individual face, but I think this has taught us clearly that we need to stop uploading personally identifiable photos of youth members. --B (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I will take a stab at a guideline- should it be separate or part of WP:S-IMG? I'm afraid this is a gray area as the Youth Protection rules do not cover photos.[8] Each council is supposed to develop their own rules for website operations based on state and local laws and the standards and guidelines set by National.[9] I have no clue on the policies of other countries or national Scout organizations. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 00:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd suggest something like "here's a potential problem area....cover your rear by doing this..." I"d say make it part of IMG, ask for input on WP:SCOUT, avoid country specific as it varies too much. See my new taggings on commons for a few things you can do there. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what IMG is, but it needs to be somewhere under Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting so that nobody claims we are trying to unilaterally change Wikipedia's image use policy. We are merely making a suggestion for Scout leaders that are interested in contributing images to articles related to this WikiProject. If it is stored in template space or uses the {{guideline}} template or anything like that, someone will try to MFD it faster than you can say "too much time on your hands". --B (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Don't know if you've heard, but see http://spankingart.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Jimbo_Wales --B (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what IMG is, but it needs to be somewhere under Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting so that nobody claims we are trying to unilaterally change Wikipedia's image use policy. We are merely making a suggestion for Scout leaders that are interested in contributing images to articles related to this WikiProject. If it is stored in template space or uses the {{guideline}} template or anything like that, someone will try to MFD it faster than you can say "too much time on your hands". --B (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd suggest something like "here's a potential problem area....cover your rear by doing this..." I"d say make it part of IMG, ask for input on WP:SCOUT, avoid country specific as it varies too much. See my new taggings on commons for a few things you can do there. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I hadn't heard, but OOH RAH! — Rlevse • Talk • 14:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- See User:Gadget850/Sandbox4 for draft. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- SA now has a link on the main page to a newly created nonviolence policy.[10] "non-obscene photo of a recognisable person -> ok, but the person may object to how their photo is used". --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- See User:Gadget850/Sandbox4 for draft. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
This user already had a last warning and when he continued to attack the user user:nku_pyrodragon you gave him another warning instead of a block —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rws killer6 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
SSP case
See outcome of the SSP case you submitted here. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the prompt resolution of the SSP case. It is still my profound hope that our open matter regarding George Thomas Coker could be resolved peaceably with similar alacrity. Alansohn (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I learned something new today
If you oppose child pornography, you support slavery. [11] I'm glad we've created this encyclopedia with such wonderful information. --B (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, my point was that opposing free culture because it allows people to promote thing you disagree with is promoting a lack of freedom. Think of the children! Should they all be raised in a world where information is proprietary and controlled or raised in a world where they and others are all free to express themselves? Freedom of speech is about the freedom to communicate and promote what we don't wish communicated and promoted or it is nothing - there is no need to protect speech everyone supports. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Freedom is the right for people to be free to act the way they want to act. The free culture movement is about enabling people to create, modify, and distribute information as text, sounds, images, or video by providing copyleft software tools and content for modification and redistribution. It is not free if the uses are legally restricted to the original content creator's desired purposes. For that, you need to use a non-free copyright license. Wikipedia and WikiMedia have a mission of maximum worldwide free distribution of freely re-editable educational content. If one does not want content that they create to be legally free to be modified and redistributed for causes one does not personally endorse, then they should not contribute them to a free culture site such as wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Freedom is not an absolute right, it has limits. Check any number of US Supreme Court rulings. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Talk page editing
Hi, Rlevse. Did you see Hrafn's Hrafn's comment at Talk:Politicization of science? --Iamunknown 23:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again. :-) I meant to say this soon after my first comment above, but I wanted to apologise for commenting on the talk page and then coming here; in my opinion, it should have been the other way; i.e. let you know of Hrafn's comment first, wait for your comment and then add my own comment if was pertinent or necessary.
- I guess it isn't a Wiki-Sin ;-), but my action does seem to me to be impolite. Thanks for being polite to me nonetheless. :-) Cheers, Iamunknown 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Sock
User:No, Gwen! looks awfully SOCKy with only 4 edits, 1 to vote against deletion and 1 to question the closing admin. Probably impossible to tell whose though with all the comments to the AFD page. MBisanz talk 01:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Obvious sock, can you tell who the master is? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well they address Durova by name [13] so its obvious they know she is a person whose opinion is highly regarded. User:TlatoSMD is a possibility, but he's been around long enough to know better, as does User:Homologeo. This related edit summary seems fishy though [14]. User:Jack-A-Roe seems very involved, but I'm not sure which side he's on. MBisanz talk 02:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. Hard to block without a master of able to show vote stacking. Keep an eye on it and let me know when you figure it out and we can block. Use SSP, AIV, whatever is appropriate. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was a bit suspicious...she also knows what deletionism is by the looks of it. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. Hard to block without a master of able to show vote stacking. Keep an eye on it and let me know when you figure it out and we can block. Use SSP, AIV, whatever is appropriate. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- This discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch#Pro-pedophile_chatboard_.2F_forum_resources_linked_from_Wikipedia seems to point to User:Jack-A-Roe as the owner, as only 3 users have editted that page in the last 2 weeks. But I wouldn't call it good enough to go to RFCU with. MBisanz talk 02:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, just a suspicious amount of wiki-experience. Knows how AFDs work, what deletionism is, signs comments, knows policy...it just doesn't seem right. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Regarding User talk:68.109.68.240
This user is making the same reverts that User:Atari400 (the sockpuppet of User:KirbyTime) made to Template: Countries of the Indosphere. He is making the same omissions and is not justifying anything in the talk pages after having been asked multiple time to join the debate, but has done nothing and in fact claims that i have not joined the discussion [15], though I am all over the talk page. He has been told by a user with rollback powers (Alexfusco5) that he has been making unconstructive edits that need to be justified. After Alexfusco5 made the comment and reverted his edit, he has been silent on the template and the template talk. He did has not edited the template again at this time in order to not break the 3RR. Based of his talk page, it appears that he has violated the WP:CIV, but I am unsure; if he has can you please give him a warning or some form of disciplinary action. Also, I would like to know, where or to whom should I report his behaviour? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have also posted the above on Jehochman's user talk Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
question
Heyo, Where should I place this question? - [16] Thanks in advance. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
RfA thank-spam
block review
You edit conflicted out my decline :( - Revolving Bugbear 22:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thank you for your constructive criticism and input in making Alpha Kappa Alpha a featured article.
Best,
miranda 08:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Sock IP
While observing the everlasting editwar over genre on the Underoath page, I noticed that many of the edits that change the genre to Screamo are done by annon IPs. I would like to point out one IP in particular, not because of edit warring on the Underoath page, but because of it's history of vandalism in general. This IP is 63.3.16.2 [18]. In one of the edit summaries, this particular IP says "sorry i'm not on my profile". I think whoever is using this IP, probably has a real accout, and does their vandalism via this annon IP. In addition to this, there is a suspicion that this IP is used by the same user as the IP 63.3.16.1 [19]. This second IP has a similar history of vandalism. whether these IPs are connected I am unsure. but I'm pretty sure 63.3.16.2 is a Sock IP of someone. I would like to do something about it, but because I have been unable to find any user accounts that seem to be associated with this IP. Is this an appropriate situation for a use of CheckUser? If so, where do I go to request it? If not, what should I do as my next step? I've seen you have a history of dealing with sockpuppets, What do you think of this situation? Axcess (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
TM reverts
I know. I realized after the last revert. Rracecarr (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
AN3RR archiving
Hi, Rlevse. I saw that you archived AN3RR lately. Are you aware that it's set up to be archived by bot [20]? If you had a reason for archiving it, I understand, but thought I should let you know at least. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yea, but I don't like long listings of resolved cases. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- There was kind of a rough consensus among the admins monitoring the board to leave them up for 72 hours, just so you know. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Concerning indefinitely banned users
Hello, Rlevse. I noticed that some banned users are able to get back online even with the same IP, such as User:Nku pyrodragon, who had already banned 3 times before on being a sockpuppet. But he still is able to make a new membership, even after blocking. He can also log in and edit his talk page and others' also. Can you give me an answer on my talk page? Styrofoam☭1994talk 02:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Question
Regarding the recent Israel-Palestine Arbcom. I've been feeling that a number of wiki-editors have been in breach of the Decorum principle. I've raised the issue here, but believe that it won't be seen there - where do I raise this issue so we can get a clearer explanation of how this is intended to be implemented? JaakobouChalk Talk 17:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:RFAR#Appeals_and_requests_for_clarification — Rlevse • Talk • 17:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Admin coaching
Hi. User:Bluegoblin7 is looking for an admin coach but I am a relatively new admin so I would prefer to co coach the user. Can we coach him together? Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 19:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- His user page says he's left wiki for good, but he's still editing....??? He needs to make up his mind. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. He is still editing. Tbo 157(talk) 20:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ive emailed the user and he has confirmed that he is staying and has also removed the notice that he has left. Sorry if this seems a bit sudden but I just wanted to let you know that im not trying to force you in any way as this is entirely voluntary and I am aware of the amount of time admin coaching can take up. If you do accept, and I really don't mind if you don't, I will be willing to support you in any way possible as a co coach. Thanks very much. Tbo 157(talk) 12:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. He is still editing. Tbo 157(talk) 20:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- His user page says he's left wiki for good, but he's still editing....??? He needs to make up his mind. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Belated thanks...
for dealing with that problem on ANI. Cheers. miranda 22:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Concerning the User User:styrofoam1994
While surfing wikipedia, I notcied that this user received a final warning to stop harassing the user:Nku_pyrodragon. However, he continued to harass users and he did not receive a block for his actions. Instead you gave him another last warning. He seems to be also harassing the user:rws_killer6--Wikieditor1989 (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason: "reason —unconvinced, make a pseudo article on your talk page does not convince me. this is also your third decline and you're only allowed two. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)"
- That's what Addhoc told him to do. I can't tell whether he's actually serious about it, but he seems to be doing what Addhoc told him to. - Revolving Bugbear 17:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced for a second. If Addhoc wants to be so trusting, Addhoc can unblock him and have it on his shoulders. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fair 'nuff. - Revolving Bugbear 21:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced for a second. If Addhoc wants to be so trusting, Addhoc can unblock him and have it on his shoulders. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to play the you said, they said game but...
you said then he said and then he said and then he said. I really don't care, he just popped up on my watchlist. Best regards! --omtay38 19:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The Merger Tags
Hi Rlevse I removed th Merger tags on Blue Heron Lodge and Tidewater Council because the votes were saying to Keep them seperate and i got a comment on Blue Heron Lodge that said the merger was declined and the Merge strip needed to be taken off of this page and Tidewater Council. I was told to remove the tags by Wikipedia. I did not remove them because i wanted too. Thank you. Kenny (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is no talk about this particular merge on either talk place. Where did this discussion take place? — Rlevse • Talk • 04:02, 28 January 2008
Before I got rid of the Merger button the bottom of the disscution said the merge was discontinued so when i saw that that means the merger dissuction needed to be taken off.Thank you.Kenny (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You mean "The merge request has been removed in that it was erroneously placed in the first place. Sorry for the confusion. KC9CQJ 00:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)" ? Thata's from almost 2 years ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the unblock
I believed it to be an honest mistake, caught in a block web. Thanks for freeing me. Have a good evening Travellingcari (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, that's what I meant by "mistake" -- that I got caught in the blocked IP by accident, not that the Admin made a mistake. Have a good day Travellingcari (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Puppet master now editing as IP?
Hi, I notice you were the closing admin in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sports Nuggets so I thought I'd come to you. It looks like the same editor is now editing through public library computers: [21] and [22]
It also appears Sports Nuggets is the same editor as another puppet master account: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ron liebman. How does one go about reporting weird cases like this? --Mosmof (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- File another SSP with Ron as the master, with diffs showing how Sports N is connected to him. SInce they're public IPs, they can't get blocked long though, but it would help sort out the real master. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it looks like you caught a little Ron liebman mini-sock farm. He managed to change articles enough to evade his regular followers (like me). See this deleted edit along with Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ron liebman for a comprehensive list of his socks. Looks pretty obvious that the Sports Nuggets ones are the same. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Greetings
Rlevse, did you get my e-mail? John Smith's (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
?. Post here. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I recently remembered your warning to Giovanni and myself not to revert each other, or you would issue a block. After you made the warning, Giovanni reverted a change I had made earlier on the Republic of China Navy article at 23:53, 17th January 2008. I also think this is a case of wikistalking, as he has never shown a real interest on that page or any other modern military pages. He reverted me for a rather dubious reason and then never commented again on the talk page/edited again on the page.
Just thought you should know, as I guess you missed it. John Smith's (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Has he threatened you, edit warred, etc? On rv doesn't make an edit war. Anything blockable? If it violates an arbcom restriction, you can report to WP:AE. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought your warning was a universal one that we shouldn't revert each other anywhere. Never mind, then. John Smith's (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
MfD question
It seems that as Wikipedia's grown, we've relaxed our restrictions on what goes on in the userspace to allow more userboxes, mini-projects, etc. Would something like this User:TlatoSMD#Great_Wikipedians which probably wouldn't have survived 2 or 3 years ago, survive today? MBisanz talk 08:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. Good question, but I never mess with mfd. I'll ask someone. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi there MBisanz. These days we're very relaxed about what we can have on userpages. As long as it's not directly causing damage to the encyclopedia, or advertising off-wiki events, companies or people then we're fairly relaxed. With respect to User:TlatoSMD#Great Wikipedians, the user is simply showing gratitude to his fellow Wikipedians, which does little damage. It would have been very much different however if he'd have done the opposite and used his userpage to offend others. Hope that helps explain, Ryan Postlethwaite 12:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Names
User:Bdasgupta@gmail.com said he realised the problems that could happen by having that username. I suggested he either rename the account or create a new one. He did the latter, so it should be ok now. Spellcast (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
See proposal
Please see proposal here: Talk:George_Thomas_Coker#Proposal. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps pistols at dawn at 20 yards? I will certainly consider the proposal, but I am concerned that the proposal in and of itself implies that this is an issue solely between the two of us and not an issue that needs to be addressed on a larger basis. Before we could meaningfully involve others, I think it's important that we have some statement of what the issues are from the various perspectives. Hopefully, it might be possible to address some of these issues without some form of arbitration and the ones remaining might seem more soluble. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- You said "I will certainly consider the proposal". How how much time do you feel you need to respond? This issue has been thoroughly discussed for over a month. The point of the proposal is not to rehash old ground, but to have uninvolved admins look at it with fresh eyes. Please respond on the Coker talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Typo
Hey, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Oldnoach should be Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Oldnoah. Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No violation
I still hope that you will respond to my three emails. Thanks in advance. Racepacket (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Post what you have to say here. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Resending emails. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Checkuser says User:Runreston is not User:Racepacket, but it also says it's probably someone else that I will keep an eye on. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- It really doesn't take much effort to use a different computer to edit a similar set of articles and pass a checkuser. Someone like User:Racepacket who's been caught redhanded before would certainly know what to do to avoid that trap. User:Runreston's edit history, a near perfect overlap of Racepacket's, provides far more conclusive evidence of sockpuppetry than would the checkuser. Call me cynical, but my guess is that Racepacket/Runreston was hoping I would have gone straight for a checkuser, which would have come clean and whould have given him the go-ahead to continue his abuse of Dane Rauschenberg and other related articles. Unfortunately, experience tells me that I can expect the same pattern of articles to be attacked in the next several days by a member of the extended Racepacket family. Alansohn (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Checkuser says User:Runreston is not User:Racepacket, but it also says it's probably someone else that I will keep an eye on. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Resending emails. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Y'know, you're absolutely right. I re-ran the check just now and used a different geolocation mechanism. Turns out (without revealing too much), that they are in different states but in very close proximity to each other. Enough that a change of ISP can take that into account, especially given that their useragents are identical. I'm calling this
Likely - sorry about all the confusion - Alison ❤ 01:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- All I can tell you is that it was not me, just in case you don't want to discourage/bannish an editor under mistaken circumstances. The Wikipedia exploits of Dane Rauschenberg are a matter of weekly discussion when runners gather for our training runs, but I don't know know the identity of RunReston, Pats2001, or Bella de Ball. I can tell you that the Director of the Washington Birthday Marathon lives in Reston. I am very sure that Fiddy2, 69.143.1.252, 68.55.224.168, Revertedlesbo, Arric, Danerunsalot, and Runnerguy are all Rauschenberg. Since Rauchenberg has relocated to Utah for his new job, which involves extensive travel, his IP addresses will change. Racepacket (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- My prophesy skills (powered by much unfortunate experience with User:Racepacket and his sockpuppets, and infused with a tremendous sense of cynicism) only seem to be achieving even greater accuracy. My prediction of Racepacket using a brand new sockpuppet, but attempting to take greater precautions to avoid a checkuser: Confirmed. That further abuse of the Dane Rauschenberg article would be forthcoming, accounting for five of User:Runreston's six edits since his return: Confirmed. The initial excuse proffered by User:Racepacket, that he had created his sockpuppet User:Xcstar because of concerns that Rauschenberg would come to Racepacket's home and beat him up is so utterly laughable, that it's a miracle that anyone would ever have accepted it as justification for hundreds of abusive and defamatory edits regarding Dane Rauschenberg. User:Runreston appeared immediately after User:Xcstar was outed, and dove right into the same set of articles that were targets of Racepacket/Xcstar. After a false turn, it now appears that evidence is likely that Racepacket and Runreston are indeed one and the same. Racepacket/Runreston's latest effort to make the article more "encylopedia [sic]" include the claim that "Rauschenberg started testing his ability to gain free publicity by obtaining a Washington Post article and photograph covering his efforts to use craigslist to obtain a blind date for a 2004 New Years Eve party." among other unsupported allegations that Rauschenberg had improperly obtained funding to cover entry fees. Racepacket/Runreston also makes the bizarre accusation on Talk:Dane Rauschenberg that "Rauschenberg was very vague as to his criteria for selecting the races to enter. Among his criteria was whether his running friends were going to be there. I have left this issue out of the article." I have no idea what has triggered this intense and despicable hatred User:Racepacket has for Rauschenberg, especially in light of the reasonable bio on the http://www.racepacket.com web site (see here). If I were Rauschenberg. it would seem that an order of protection would be appropriate. I just question why we here at Wikipedia should be in the role of furthering this shameless abuse. It's well past time that we permanently blocked both User:Runreston and User:Racepacket once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Y'know, you're absolutely right. I re-ran the check just now and used a different geolocation mechanism. Turns out (without revealing too much), that they are in different states but in very close proximity to each other. Enough that a change of ISP can take that into account, especially given that their useragents are identical. I'm calling this
- You should file this at SSP. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I did already. The last time it cam back "confirmed" that User:Runreston and User:Racepacket were the same. An initial checkuser was iffy, but a further check came back "likely". Now User:Racepacket is back editing one and only one article, the same article that was the monomaniacal obsession of User:Xcstar, his previous sockpuppet. How much more evidence do we need? Why do we impose unrealistic burdens on good faith editors, while giving malicious vandals like User:Runreston / User:Racepacket the persistent benefit of the doubt? Alansohn (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is no hatred involved here, and I am not making the edits that User:Alansohn is discussing. The fact that the people who are editing a particular set of articles, months apart, are located in the same geographical area, does not make it "likely" that they are the same person. At the breakfast following the Feb. 3 Sunday run, Rauschenberg including his Wikipedia article came up again, but I did not detect malice or racor, just amusement. There is no grand conspiracy here against User:Alansohn or User:Fiddy2. Nor is there any violation of policy. User:Racepacket (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
My Statement Regarding the Ehud Lesar Arbcom Case
Hi Rlevse, is there any reason my statement wasn't copied over? The arbitrators haven't yet rejected or accepted my proposal so I believe it should be copied over, if anything just for the record. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- My apologies, I noticed it's on the talk page. Out of curiosity, what is the distinguishing factor between putting on the main page vs. talk? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Involved parties go on case page, uninvolved on talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Involved parties go on case page, uninvolved on talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you have a look into this?
Talk:8th Georgetown South, Page was speedily deleted. --Egel Reaction? 10:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Checking copyright rules, but I think this doesn't matter articles have to meet GFDL rules. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe he means that the talk page did not get deleted. I've seen this before. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 21:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- The page looks to have been speedy deleted as a copy vio. If the owner of the copyright can be contacted, and agrees to release the material under the GFDL, then we can use the material, but he must specifically state that it is released under the GFDL. Permissions should really be done through OTRS, so we can have an official copy of the email granting us permission. Unless we can be truly sure the document meets the GFDL, it should stay deleted. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I think I just made a big mistake, but I'm not sure.....
I'm the guy who's been working on Kardashev scale, well me, User:Ben_Standeven, User:Beland... anyway I did something today I'm not sure I was supposed to do, I restored a page back to it's previous version after several edits had been made, I'm not sure, but I know there's a privilege called rollback, that I don't have. But I'm not sure this counts... but I'd like for you to look into it.
My problem is with User:Michaelbusch he has a tendancy to remove large sections of the article without talking about why on the talk page... Today he made 7 removals, without talking about any one of them... once... starting with this one:
he removed 6 large sections on Dec 27 starting with this one:
I've already talked to you about this once before, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rlevse/RlevseTalkArchive8#Kardashev_Scale.2C_and_concern_from_a_new_user but his abbreviated reasons of removal and limited discussion on the Talk:Kardashev_scale page erks me. I don't really know what to do about it. Can you help?--Sparkygravity (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've requested to User:Michaelbusch that he voluntarily restore the page to the previous condition, until the issue can be resolved. I previously did not revert his actions of the 27th of Dec. hoping that we could work it out on the discussion page. However if he choses to ignore me this time, I was wondering if you would do me a favor and restore it yourself in 3 days time, until the issue can be resolved. Let me know, and do you think this is a fair compromise, I'm suggesting?--Sparkygravity (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's fair, I almost protected the article. Let me know of major events. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- User:Michaelbusch and User:LouScheffer may know each other from their time at Caltech.... if they do I really couldn't call it sockpuppetry. But two people working together because of their work or personal relationship could present a POV that isn't a neutral POV. This could end up harming the article by biasing opinion.--Sparkygravity (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's fair, I almost protected the article. Let me know of major events. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've requested to User:Michaelbusch that he voluntarily restore the page to the previous condition, until the issue can be resolved. I previously did not revert his actions of the 27th of Dec. hoping that we could work it out on the discussion page. However if he choses to ignore me this time, I was wondering if you would do me a favor and restore it yourself in 3 days time, until the issue can be resolved. Let me know, and do you think this is a fair compromise, I'm suggesting?--Sparkygravity (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to the matter. Regarding your continued concern over connection to the anonymous IP 4.153.59.194, it should be noted that the same IP registered at AtariAge the same day to do the usual harassment and trolling. The user (Stonic) has a history of going from various IP's to register there, on ebay, and through various email accounts to harass that group of individuals (atariage, Curt Vendel of Atarimuseum, and Matt Reichart of atariprotos.com), and nfortunately he spilled it over to Wikipedia. The owner of AtariAge was going to share the logs for that IP, if that would have helped things, but it appears unnecessary now. However, I just wanted to make you aware of that because you mentioned not being totally convinced. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI at BN
Since you were his coach, this might interest you Wikipedia:BN#Readdition_of_administrator_flag. MBisanz talk 04:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Tube bar spam
I've identified a few more accounts per your request on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Blacklist.3F. Reviewing the remaining links, there appears to be many good faith additions, but the statement posted on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tube bar ("If links to DP on other pages are ok, then we'll just do that ;)"[23]) raises a corncern. There is a discussion on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#www.digitpress.com_repeated_spam_on_Wikipedia, hopefully we can get more input. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
More wikistalking from Giovanni
Dear Rlevse, Giovanni continues to wikistalk me. I left a message on a user's page about something he wrote, and Giovanni decided to reply in his name. I asked Giovanni nicely on his talk page not to follow me around if I was asking one person a question. He then removed it without comment and left yet another comment on the other user's talk page.
Can you please ask him to stop doing this? If I leave a message on an article talk page he is working on, he can comment. But if I ask a question that only one person can answer he shouldn't be following me around. He has complained that I followed him on to an article recently at the Admin's incident board and that I was seeking conflict. Yet he is doing exactly what he accuses me of. The one piece of advice he was given on the Admin board was to leave me alone - he appears to have ignored that and wants to provoke a situation. As he has ignored my polite requests, can you please deal with the situation? John Smith's (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Both of you need to chill and quit trying to get the other party in trouble. Either ignore each other or engage constructively. I'm sick of watching this disupte rampage all over the 'pedia. You're both better than that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is like the pot calling the kettle black for JohnSmith to accuse me of Wikistalking! JohnSmiths continues to violate assuming good faith here because in fact, I regularly visit that users talk page--I did not follow JohnSmiths here as he accuses me. That editor is a regular user on the main page I edit, and he has done good work--and we share similar interests. Therefore I like to follow up on issues and visit his talk page in order to see what is going on. My recent comment on the issue JohnSmiths has started on his talk page was about the issue, but was my comment directed at that user-- not at JohnSmith's. After JohnSmiths complained that he didn't want me to answer him, I didn't. So, for him to twist this into me wikistalking him is a petty attempt to just sling more mud. I respectfully suggest he grow up.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Giovanni, when you delete requests from myself on your talk page not to follow me on to other user's talk pages and don't reply to me but then involve yourself in my discussion with another person for a second time, how can I assume good faith on your part?
- As for trying to claim your post was directed at someone else, how on earth could this be anything but a message for me?
- You do not visit Sky's talk page regularly because there was not a single message from you on this talk page, either the active page or the archives he has listed, before you wikistalked me. John Smith's (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- You might like to argue with me about things, but I find it rather boring. Also don't twist what I said. I said after you complained that I responded to you instead of the editor you kept provoking in argument, I didn't respond to you further. I responded to him about it. It was only after that, that you continued to engage me in the subject. So if you don't want me to respond, don't talk to me either! As far as that users page, as I said, I regularly visit it. I know you don't want to assume good faith, as you rarely ever do, but this is not a luxury--its policy.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- How am I supposed to get you to stop stalking me if I can't ask you to stop doing so? Would you prefer me to just report you automatically? I try to show some good faith by hoping you will listen to reason so things are resolved without getting an admin involved. But whenever I do entreat you on your talk page, you delete the comment on carry on. The only time we interact over your stalking behaviour is when I talk to an admin. John Smith's (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think you must be talking about yourself, because I have not done any of those things. Its you who has wikistalking me to the main article I edit and engaged in repeated bickering, personal attacks and violations of good faith. When you do things, its you who are doing them--not anyone else. I can only assume you are engaged in some type of psychological projection when you assign to me these actions of your own.Giovanni33 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- How am I supposed to get you to stop stalking me if I can't ask you to stop doing so? Would you prefer me to just report you automatically? I try to show some good faith by hoping you will listen to reason so things are resolved without getting an admin involved. But whenever I do entreat you on your talk page, you delete the comment on carry on. The only time we interact over your stalking behaviour is when I talk to an admin. John Smith's (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- You might like to argue with me about things, but I find it rather boring. Also don't twist what I said. I said after you complained that I responded to you instead of the editor you kept provoking in argument, I didn't respond to you further. I responded to him about it. It was only after that, that you continued to engage me in the subject. So if you don't want me to respond, don't talk to me either! As far as that users page, as I said, I regularly visit it. I know you don't want to assume good faith, as you rarely ever do, but this is not a luxury--its policy.Giovanni33 (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Both of you carry out your fingerpointing and debates somewhere else. I only want hard facts here on my talk page. I'm also posting on both talk pages strongly advising you both to leave each other alone. If I come across more issues with either of you, I won't hesitate to block. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm ready
Hi Rlevse, a couple of months ago you told me to let you know when I was ready for a nomination on RFA. I am ready for a nomination now Alexfusco5 22:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi there, Alex. Just before you do that, I'd like you to email me please. I have one or two things I'd like to ask you - Alison ❤ 16:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I just deleted Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Durzatwink after an entry on WP:AN. Styrofoam1994 now is adamant that it was a real SSP case and not him playing around, like previously with said user. You have been involved in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nku pyrodragon and might know more about the matter. Could you please comment or recreate. Thanks Agathoclea (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposed recall page
How does this look for a recall process User:MBisanz/Recall?, since it will be an RfA question. MBisanz talk 03:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
Sockpuppetry case
Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Mickylynch101
I believe you completely abused your powers in this case. I have been forced to create a new account to defend myself from these bogus charges. I have provided evidence on Markanthony101s page that disproves your accusations.
The way you held the discussion was an absolute joke. No-one commented on the evidence (They weren't given a chance to) and I wasn't given a chance to defend myself. Its a pity that admin powers cannot be overturned because you have simply gone power mad. And yes, of course this account is a sockpuppet account but I have absolutely no connection to Mickylynch. Please consider the evidence and allow me a chance to defend myself. Markanthony102 (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I've learnt a lot about the admin hierarchy in my time here. Markanthony102 (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thoughts
Did you see the changes I made? Thoughts? --evrik (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
village pump thread
See WP:VPM#Wrongly accused of sockpuppetry; consequent case was illegally handled and wrongfully executed. I think this may be a valid complaint, given the poor quality of, in particular, the timeline evidence that was provided at the SSP page. —Random832 16:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Given the unblock declines on both talk pages User_talk:Mickylynch101#Sockpuppetry_case and User_talk:Markanthony101#Sockpuppetry_case, his tone in his complaint above, and doing what he complained of back to me (Filing VP complaint before I can respond, I'm not overly inclined to help him. If someone else wants to go out on a limb and unblock him, it's on them. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
FA thanks
Randy,
Thanks for the great news about my first FA. I heard it first from you, when checking my "new messages" — as it should be! Appreciate all the help, Jim. JGHowes talk - 06:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I thought about that some time back. For myself, I ended up adding a knot bar. See User:Gadget850/about at the bottom of the Scouting column. If there is enough interest, I will be glad to work on userboxes. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Person of the year
LOL, in 2006 the person was you, as in Wikipedia editor, YouTube video maker, Flickr photographer, blogger, and all kinds of other Webers 2.0. So you too are Person of the Year. Pretty cool, isn't it? :) Renata (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Archieving?
I'm still working on the case, and I believe the editors are long time sock of banned user(s). I can't narrow down the case, because the editors seem to have been wikipedians since 2005 and with various socks. I request you to not close the case. Among the suspected socks on the list, 5 accounts are busy making disruptive edits and the rest are either blocked infinitely or abandoned the accounts.
- Azukimonaka
- KoreanShoriSenyou
- Orchis29
- Amazonfire
- Opp2
However, I need the blocked user to be listed for proof. Thatcher said technical measure is not helping to confirm their possiblity of the sock. I'm collecting their behavioral patterns from old and recent activities. Among them, User:KoreanShoriSenyou should've banned early for the account name policy, which means Exclusive use for disposal of Chosenjin. Chosenjin itself is racial slur to South Korean the account name is like Nazi's conduct. If you think it is confusing, I wil clean up much. But f I make another file on them, mostly the case is just copy and paste.Please restore the case. Thanks--Appletrees (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Focus each case on one puppetmaster, it's way to confusing to try to sort out such a case when the CU info is inconclusive. Just submit new ones when you're ready. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, they're not proven as inconclusive, but "likely". They seem to use multiple ISP and long time abusers. I don't think their case can be confirmed through RFCU. That's why the check admin filed the case instead of me to list their behavioral patterns. And I feel frustration again with this matter and some sock who looks like obviously some of the suspected users on my RFCU file is wikistalkng me.[24] And a admin is too mild on him unlike Korean editors.[25][26] Can you just look through the collapsed boxes? I made "bold texts" to make the behavioral pattern conspicuous. Please reconsider it. --Appletrees (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- What's this [27], users aren't socks of themeselves, they are the master or a sock of someone else. You did this a few times. Who's the master? As for Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Azukimonaka, I was too hasty, I am blocking 43.244.133.167 for a month and Orchis29, Azukimonaka and KoreanShoriSenyou indef each, with KoreanShoriSenyou the master account. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was about to add evidences regarding the sock puppetry of User:Opp2 and the others to the file until you closed the case. They seem to have been long time users. I don't think "was being used in" is right usage in English. None of editors have been engaging in the Liancourt Rocks wrote that but only Opp2 and the suspected users did. I looked through the every achieved talk pages of the article, and the users who left their opinions with "was being written" are in turn, banned socks. I think I need to post another file on Opp2 and KoreanShoriSenyou. So are azukimonaka and KoreanShoriSenyou indeed infinitely blocked? If so, I really thank you and have a time to look the boxes. This case is just like a labyrinth and the users are linked to each other. I'm making another file on Opp2's file again. --Appletrees (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you again. :-) --Appletrees (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thewiseeye3400
Yo, I all ready admitted to having more then one account look at the talk page. But I don't see the problem with having more then one account. Also if you look at my user:page I said I was done with wikipedia, but if I ever want to come back on I would just make a new account. Wikipedia = to many rules!
Hiya, I was wondering if you would be willing to consider lifting page protection? I think that it was definitely useful in breaking a nasty revert cycle, but I think we've got a handle on things now. If you check our recent poll, I think it's pretty clear that we have a consensus for the condensed version of the article, as a basis from which to move forward with further article improvement. There have been no new comments in a few days, so if you have time, could you please review the section, and let me know if you agree? Thanks, Elonka 03:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it looks like the one editor with WP:OWN issues, PHG (talk · contribs), is still determined to defy consensus and revert the article.[28] We've reverted him back, but it's looking like he's going to continue fighting this. He's also continuing to disrupt in other areas, such as an Original Research problem today at Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis (which we have since cleaned up). Though I see also now he's been blocked at Commons for copyright violations (sigh).
It is my opinion that we've given him enough good-faith cautions (his talkpage is full of them), and that since he's continuing to edit-war in defiance of consensus, that he just needs to be blocked for disruption. He was already blocked once for 24 hours, but he never admitted fault. If it were up to me, I'd say that he just needs to be blocked and then kept blocked until he can at least acknowledge that he understands the problems that his behavior has been causing, and until he can promise to do better in the future. Of course, I'm an involved editor, and it's not my decision, but I can still make a recommendation. Or if you disagree, I think at least a longer block (48 hours), so that we can continue working on cleanup without disruption. Do you agree with my assessment? Or would you rather that I took this to ANI? --Elonka 01:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- If I might add my own two cents here... PHG's edits have been incredibly tendentious and disruptive. His warring and insertion of false information derived from original research is worse than simple vandalism because it discourages editors working in good faith from improving the article. People see a train-wreck of an article, where improvements are constantly reverted, and they walk away rather than get involved. It also places a huge burden on other editors to clean up the scores of articles to which he's added misinformation. His actions are all the more insidious because his content appears well-sourced, and so no one questions it. Many of have tried to talk to him, but he simply refuses to hear us or answer our concerns. This problem has dragged on since last summer, and there seems to be no end in sight. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Rlevse, I'm a bit confused by your re-protecting the article. Could you please let me know what you would like to see as conditions, to unprotecting it? Based on my view (and multiple other editors on the talkpage), the situation is pretty simple: We have a consensus to condense the article and then continue working on it from a condensed version. Then we have one editor, PHG, who has been in violation of WP:OWN for months, who refuses to acknowledge consensus, and who keeps reverting the article to his own preferred 200K version (which he continues to even further expand in his userspace).[29] PHG is also continuing to create POV forks and WP:COATRACK articles, into which he is continuing to put biased and highly questionable information. See Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review. All of our attempts to get him to stop this voluntarily have been unsuccessful; he has continued to defy consensus for months now, whether it be an article RfC or wording of the intro sentence, or condensing the article, he refuses to concede any point, and instead, continues escalating. Several of his POV forks have been put through AfD,[30][31][32][33][34] but it is exhausting to keep chasing after him like this.
I saw that you asked at talk for diffs of two other editors participating in the poll, but I assure you that neither of those editors participated in the poll, and this should be easy enough to check by looking at the talkpage history since the poll was started on January 29,[35] and neither of them (Justin nor Matt57) has participated at all on the talkpage since well before that.
I am trying very hard to avoid an ArbCom case here, since I don't think a case would really do any purpose except to waste months of time, to confirm what is already pretty obvious: PHG is not working in a cooperative manner, PHG is defying talkpage consensus, PHG is ignoring all good-faith requests to modify his behavior, PHG is refusing to compromise on any point. If this were complex enough that it needed a judgment call, I could see taking it to ArbCom, but it's not complex: We have long lists of complaints at PHG's talkpage from a variety of editors,(Elonka)(Geogre)(Adam Bishop)[36](WJBscribe) (Ioeth)[37] (Aramgar) (Kafka Liz)[38](Srnec) (Eupator) (Shell Kinney)[39] (Luna Santin) (Jehochman) (Orderinchaos) (Durova) (Dihydrogen Monoxide)
He was blocked for 24 hours on EN,[40] but it did no good. We now have dozens of articles which need cleanup, and he is continuing to cause more problems on a near daily basis. He has ignored warnings from multiple admins. I was hoping that with the poll at the talkpage at least, we would have a clear way to move forward, but if the action each time that PHG reverts is simply to protect the article, without taking action on the cause of the disruption (PHG), we are never going to be able to break out of this cycle. :/ So, could you please tell me what you'd like to see, what proof that you would need to settle things in your own mind, that all other good faith efforts to deal with PHG have been exhausted, and that the solution is not protecting the article from everyone, but simply protecting Wikipedia from PHG? --Elonka 06:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Case just accepted by arbcom, it's rather moot now so I unprotected the pages and made a stmt on talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, PHG reverted the article again,[41] and is stating quite clearly that he does not acknowledge the consensus: [42] Per your talkpage comment, "next time I'll block whoever reverts an agreed-upon version,"[43] I am keeping you informed. Also, FYI, PHG's rhetoric seems to be increasing, since he is now referring to my archiving of a talkpage as "tampering with evidence", a "criminal offense."[44] --Elonka 17:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I did say that, but then there was no arb case, now it's an arb case. This does need addressed, so I'll confer with Thatcher, the case clerk. I'm sure you can understand why. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Until and unless an injunction is enacted by the arbitrators, article disputes are typically handled by the ordinary means until a case closes. Rlevse is an admin and can take whatever action under "ordinary means" that he wants, subject to usual review at AN/I, etc. For example, edit warring may be actionable even without crossing the 3RR threshold, depending on the circumstances. Similarly any other editor can ask for help at AN/I, AN3 or RFPP. The fact that a case is open does not immunize editors during the process. Thatcher 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I did say that, but then there was no arb case, now it's an arb case. This does need addressed, so I'll confer with Thatcher, the case clerk. I'm sure you can understand why. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I blocked him 31 hours. See talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully submit Rlevse that this situation is a bit more complex imho. The two comments PHG had added to the poll, were from an earlier poll cycle, and if you check those editors talk pages, for example here, you can see they were intimidated into leaving the article. That's not a typical way to go about consensus-building, threatening everyone who disagrees until they leave, and then saying Hey we have consensus now!. So I would ask that you consider that qualification in any sanctions against PHG until ArbCom has a chance to speak. We don't want a situation where there's any perception that the bullies run the playground. I'm not saying they do, I'm saying it could be perceived as going that way.Wjhonson (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's hardly a proper thing to do, copy votes from a prior round. Besides it's not the main reason I blocked him, it's the revert warring and ignoring of the poll. This case will likely go on for a long time and we can't ignore whatever actions, by any party, go on in the meantime; to do so would encourage improper behavior. Arbcom is not a moratorium on standard remedies. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Of course. When everyone else has been intimidated to stay away, or feels they have been, you can win any poll. As you know, or should know the revert-warring is based on the false-positive polling, followed by a campaign to punish one side. That isn't a precedent we want to set around here, imho. Wjhonson (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's hardly a proper thing to do, copy votes from a prior round. Besides it's not the main reason I blocked him, it's the revert warring and ignoring of the poll. This case will likely go on for a long time and we can't ignore whatever actions, by any party, go on in the meantime; to do so would encourage improper behavior. Arbcom is not a moratorium on standard remedies. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You said . . . not convinced they're socks . . .. Not trying to dispute your decision or anything, just very puzzled why you said that. The diffs I provided showed both IPs inserting the same bad poem (which has zero google hits) into the same article. How could that, in all liklihood, be anything but the same person? As I say, not trying to get anything changed, I just want to try to understand this so I can make a better report next time. SpinningSpark 15:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- For one thing, you only provided one pair of diffs-not much to base socking on. Tell how they're socks and show the diffs. Keep the comments focused too. The less digging the reviewing admin has to do, the faster resposne you'll get. The better case you present, the more likely you'll get the finding you want. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, I understand. I only provided one diff because it was good quality, that is, almost identical edit which could not be coincidence. Are you saying you would have preferred me to put in the maximum number of diffs I could find even if they are of variable quality? Would it help in those cases to sort the diffs by (my perceived) quality or do you just like to see them in timeline order? SpinningSpark 15:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- For one thing, you only provided one pair of diffs-not much to base socking on. Tell how they're socks and show the diffs. Keep the comments focused too. The less digging the reviewing admin has to do, the faster resposne you'll get. The better case you present, the more likely you'll get the finding you want. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- One diff coule be coincidence or people who agree, 100 is overkill; you need enough to show collusion or beyond chance level. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I reopened this case, as I am pretty sure Durzatwink is a sockpuppet. I noticed that you banned his previous incarnation in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nku pyrodragon. Can you help me out here too? contribsSTYROFOAM☭1994TALK 15:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
A little late perhaps, but congradulations on getting Truman featured. Great work. Basketballone10 02:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Requesting your support on 2 wikipedia commons articles
Hey, Is it possible to gain support on my request for 2 articles ? See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#Creation_of_2_documents_on_Wikipedia_Commons Thanks.
KVDP (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- The shortcut is WT:SCOUT (I added that a week or so ago). --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Veropedia
Check out the screenshot for Veropedia. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect of Distinguished Eagle Scouts
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Distinguished Eagle Scouts, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Distinguished Eagle Scouts is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Distinguished Eagle Scouts, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Rollback
Thanks for helping us out. KC109 (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Present for you
Here you go: Alvin Townley --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Pearson
Pearson was a close friend of the pioneer of the Scouting movement Baden-Powell, and supportive of his efforts in setting up the movement and publishing its magazine The Scout. When Pearson's scheme for publishing in Braille was faltering due to lack of funds, on 2 May 1914 Baden-Powell publicly requested that "all Scouts perform a 'good turn' for The Scout magazine publisher Mr C Arthur Pearson, in order to raise money for his scheme of publishing literature in Braille for the blind." Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Sock IDing
So its obvious the SPA at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jossi_COI_diffs is a sock puppet of someone whose likely to have contributed to either this or another discussion involving Jossi. But since there are several people who have questioned/been critical of him, there is no direct connection. Obviously RFCU doesn't permit fishing, so how should it be investigated? MBisanz talk 03:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see a user "IDing", so I can't tell much other than the thread is extremely long. In cases where you can't tie an obvious sock to a master, there's not much you can do other than deal with the sock on other remedies and rules, such as 3RR, NPA, vandalism, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, you response seemed weird, till I just re-read it. I meant Sock Identification, the user in question is User:COIN tosser. Its only one edit, but if its an established user, I'd be concerned about them using socks so easily. MBisanz talk 05:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see a user "IDing", so I can't tell much other than the thread is extremely long. In cases where you can't tie an obvious sock to a master, there's not much you can do other than deal with the sock on other remedies and rules, such as 3RR, NPA, vandalism, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- ALready closed. If it's only one edit to his history, it's usually impossible to tie to a master without an RFCU (but sometimes can). If the edit is to a board of vote, I'd just make a post and note that such a first edit for a new user that is not a sock is very unusual. At SSP when I see vote stacking, I always post to the vote with a note for the closing admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 05:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
I've made a reply here [45]. If you believe there are errors within it I would appreciate being noted about them privately (via email). JaakobouChalk Talk 14:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
RfA Nom
Ok, I think I'm ready to go up, I've worked through everything at User:MBisanz/AC and can't thnk of any new areas I want to learn. And I've finished my most back-logged article work. Do you plan on writing a co-nom? Since I have 3 coaches who might write co-noms, should I accept as soon as 1 noms or wait for any others who plan on? MBisanz talk 18:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Generally, I if I coach someone, I let them choose who to nom. I may get to this tonight, but for sure tomorrow, it's late here. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I gratefully accept and will work through the Q answering and posting process now. MBisanz talk 03:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know! :), I was editting the page by section to avoid ECing with Keilana MBisanz talk 03:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm almost done. I'm wordy, lol. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know! :), I was editting the page by section to avoid ECing with Keilana MBisanz talk 03:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I gratefully accept and will work through the Q answering and posting process now. MBisanz talk 03:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping my count up-to-date :) I'm trying to pretend its not going on and just doing my regular tasks, but it someone keeps finding its way into my recently visited pages list. MBisanz talk 03:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC) No problem, and I understand. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
How many is too many?
Hi Rlevse,
I have a question that perhaps you can answer, is there an upper limit on how many images should be put in an article's gallery section? I know that WP:NOT says that Wikipedia is not an "image repository", etc., but are there any specific guidelines? For example, one of the articles I maintain, Bermuda was today loaded up with two dozen images! JGHowes talk - 00:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Way too many. If you want it to be an FA, don't even make an gallery section. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, way too many for sure. I've asked the uploader nicely to cull the number, so we'll see if he responds favorably. I was hoping there might be a MOS guideline somewhere saying "no more than x images should be placed in a gallery" or some such. He's been a long-term contributor to Bermuda articles, so hopefully a word to the wise will suffice. JGHowes talk - 03:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Ban of TlatoSMD at ANI
FYI - I posted a request for a review of your ban of TlatoSMD at AN/I. I personally agree with it, but I think it should get wider endorsement because of his fairly long history here and at de.wiki. (Is he banned there I wonder?) Avruchtalk 02:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Suspected sockpuppets now at checkuser
Could you check this for me? I think you tagged as sockpuppets on the basis of the editing patterns, but if you could confirm that for the checkuser, that would be great. You could also check out the ANI thread if you wanted. Carcharoth (talk) 08:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Case is done now. It was fairly convoluted as these things go, but I think I got them all into legible groups - Alison ❤ 09:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Franco-Mongol alliance
- Hi Rlevse. You claim there is a "consensus" for the short 70k version, but since when is a 4 "yes"/ 3 "either"/ 1 "no" a consensus, especially when several users had already said that they preferred to start working from the original version? I don't think it stands as a consensus by any Wikipedia standard. In the absence of a clear consensus, the right thing is to work from the status quo article (=the 195k version).
- You say that "you more than double the size to almost 200k in one edit": of course, this is the size of the original article! What we should do is start from the status quo article. I don't think that's a reason to block anybody. PHG (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Rlevse. FYI, PHG is continuing to create POV forks, delete sourced information,[46] and his rhetoric is increasing in the related talkpages into the realm of personal attacks. See miscellaneous comments at Talk:Samagar and Talk:Aïbeg and Serkis. It is my recommendation that he be blocked again so as to avoid further disruption. --Elonka 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Good sock?
This user User:Are0z0ne seems to know more than most new users, but they've only made 1 good contribution so far. Is this just a watch and hope for the best situation? MBisanz talk 06:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, because I see nothing blockable nor to tell us who the master is. Could be an experience IP who finally decided to get an account. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Lets sort this out
We've both been waiting a long time. In fairness, I have been extremely low key about the whole affair when I have had a right to be much angrier. I would appreciate (But don't expect) an apology from you and the other offending administrator. Markanthony102 (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TimeDec10 1984.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:TimeDec10 1984.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Question about sockpuppetry
If Markanthony101 and Mickylynch101 were, in fact, both nominating articles created by SchuminWeb for deletion, why did no-one ever say this out loud? I feel like my time may have been wasted because no-one bothered to articulate the one allegation that this was all really based on. —Random832 20:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
First sock
Caught my first sock today at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jay Turner. To bad its unwiki to award pelts to users who catch socks. MBisanz talk 08:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you block this open proxy and sock account?
As you may know that I've been dealing with a lot of Japanese socks. Some of them began using open proxy and impersonating me.-_-;; [47][48][49][50]
- South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 124.87.134.96 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
61.19.242.44 (talk · contribs) is blocked after I reported at RFCO, and 202.177.195.115 (talk · contribs) is also confirmed as an open proxy, but not blocked yet. This Applletree (talk · contribs) is obviously a sock of somebody trying to smack on me as using the similar name to mine. Please block these disruptive socks. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Because Appletrees slanders Japan, a lot of users dislike him. For instance, he tried to apply racist's tag to a famous philosopher Fukuzawa Yukichi in Japan. [51] Moreover, he made the category of "Category:Anti-Chinese sentiment in Japan" and "Category:Anti-Korean sentiment in Japan". He only shouted, "You are SOCKS" though a lot of users advised to his attitude. --124.87.134.96 (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- According to sources, he is viewed as such. If you want reliable sources, please wait for me to bring it. There are so many information on the views of the Japanese educator. And you use massive sockpuppetry and then even open proxy? Hmm.. you must stop your disruption now. You're either User:Azukimonaka group or User:Koreakorea1 group --Appletrees (talk) 13:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Referred to an admin more familiar with proxy stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the answer. I asked an open proxy clerk about the related matter. But as you see, the impersonators are beyond their duty, and you've watched their habits a little, so I needed your help. --Appletrees (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- 124.87.134.96 does not appear to be an open proxy. Appletrees has been very upset and is shopping for blocks and casting a wide net for sock puppets. They need to calm down and work step by step. The reaction only serves to feed any trolls who may be present. Jehochman Talk 16:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say 124.87.134.96 is an open proxy but mentioned the two addresses. That's why I listed the address with South Korea article. The ip was confirmed as Azukimonaka, so I included it in RFCU and SSP files. However, ip address tends to be dynamic, so it has not blocked. I don't know how they manage to change IP address, but it is not dynamic address. Rleves blocked the User:Azukimonaka group, so I wanted him to look at his contributions and time record. What good solution do you recommend me to do in this situation? They just blanked or added without discussion and make mockeries of me, and I put up with these disruption? Your saying sounds just like that. You may look at this poll. Two sockpuppets (not reported by me) and parade of meatpuppets and new users with too obvious socks.
- This is not mere content disputes as you think.--Appletrees (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not owe you an apology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Markanthony101 See my latest post. It is probably the same UNI IP adress, that is the only logical reason I can think of. I was banned so wasn't allowed to respond in my old account. MA103 (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Tks, someone blocked him. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- He returned again. IP reported to AIAV. And no apology, yet... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:White House radio broadcast 1937.jpg
R,
I've rescanned the original source photo and uploaded it as Image:White House radio broadcast 1937 (v2).jpg. Let me know what you think — your monitor is probably a higher solution than my 800x600! Is this better than Image:White House radio broadcast 1937.jpg now at Commons? If you think so, I'll go ahead and replace that one at Commons with this v2 JGHowes talk - 14:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- It has a lower resolution and file size yet parts of it look sharper. Go ahead and transfer to Commmons. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:MOVIES-HighAndMighty.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MOVIES-HighAndMighty.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 7 | 11 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
We have a problem
Remember this: User_talk:Jaakobou#Warning ?
I request your opinion/guidance on how I am supposed to continue content based discussions following this diff, which violates Arbcom Final decisions.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 16:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Prior agreement
I have a prior agrement with SA that I am permitted to edit his comments. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it if you would respect the agreement SA and I have made, publically, regarding my editing of his comments at my discression. It has substantially improved his civility to have a model of what he should be doing. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- What exactly, Dlabtot, is your goal here? Do you want to get SA to stop editing entirely? PouponOnToast (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- My goal is exactly the same as what I assume to be your goal: a quality encyclopedia. Sorry, but your insinuations don't upset me. Happy editing! Dlabtot (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
re Mantanmoreland ArbCom
I recently took part in the Giano arbcom. It was very messy. I suggest that you agree with the arbs that you will deal severely with any untoward behaviour (with due allowance, but not too much), make sure everyone is notified, and stamp on the first example of bad behaviour. This one may need a firm hand! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC) ps. It is tally - no "e".
- you're probably correct. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have checked; it is most assuredly t a l l y... :~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with LHvU. The potential for namecalling and other poor behavior is very high. I hope you have some free time to devote to this....;) and good luck. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Same subject...based on his comments here [52] I believe Morven should be recused from this case. What's the procedure for formally requesting it? Cla68 (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Workshop
Since when do we split up proposals by user? —Random832 04:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Did my email make sense? Ronnotel (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Edits
Since I believe that the edits I have made (with the exception of a few which I have adjusted for as people have notified me about) are making wikipedia better, if the worst crime I have committed is doing so many edits that I fill up watchlists I can live with that. I don't mean to sound like a jerk and I am not upset about your comments, I appreciate the positive tone in which your comments where presented, however many of the comments that I have received where in regards to "better uses of my time" so, since its my time to waste I have chosen to ignore them. I will admit that I have made some mistakes in using AWB by incorrectly changing some things, and I have corrected them. If there is a specific complaint you are referring to I would apreciate enlightenment.--Kumioko (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know you where trying to help and I am puzzled by your last comment. Is there a specific edit you are referring too? Your tone would indicate that there was a specfic edit, or type of edit in mind?--Kumioko (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, I was not referring to a specific edit. Just happened to notice the chatter on your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- OK thanks, I will try and be more careful. If you do notice my edits tearing something up just let me know and I will fix it. Just for info I am doing all the petty edits now. Next I am going to start adding the harder stuff like infoboxes and person data. When I start doing this I admit I will definately need to preview each page before hitting save. Let me know if you have any other suggestions for edits. I have mostly been concentrating on US Military biographies but I have pretty much hit every one between the current day and the American Civil War. I realize this may seem strange rather than making sure 1 page is updated before moving on but I think I can cover more ground this way much faster.--Kumioko (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, I was not referring to a specific edit. Just happened to notice the chatter on your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Komodo Lover
KL has returned though seemingly only for a hit and run attack as the IP address used has been blocked for 24 hours and so far hasn't reappeared in his usual haunts using another account. I was considering a RFCU for the address but it's obviously him so passed on it but do keep your eyes open as I think he's just prepping before returning and running at full-bore again. Just as an aside, why isn't there a subpage for KL at WP:LTA yet? There's the list that's maintained in User:DietLimeCola's userspace and it's puzzled me since I first knew of KL as to why there isn't one given the high frequency of vandalism over time. Don't need to answer, just interested. --treelo talk 03:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting. Keep me informed. Ask DLC about the page and why not at LTA, I never mess with LTA. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Upon some further digging about, turns out he's been using another account since mid December seemingly to taunt a user he knows gets annoyed by him. Anyway, there's probably a few other sleeper accounts sitting around I'm aware of and will keep you updated on developments. --treelo talk 03:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Further update for you, he's back somewhat unimaginatively as User:Godzillastar2 and will need action soon. --treelo talk 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Upon some further digging about, turns out he's been using another account since mid December seemingly to taunt a user he knows gets annoyed by him. Anyway, there's probably a few other sleeper accounts sitting around I'm aware of and will keep you updated on developments. --treelo talk 03:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you
| Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz talk 04:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC) |  |
I want to thank you personally for being my coach and helping me to develop the skills necessary to serve the community. Feel free to ever ask for my help. MBisanz talk 04:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
re:mantanmoreland rfar
no problem. I don't expect to have anything more to add (good, bad, appropriate, or not) --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Slovenian Scouts and Guides in Carinthia
I translated the material I found about Slovenian Scouts and Guides in Carinthia. Can you please take a look at User:Phips/workshop/ Should it become part of Scouting in Slovenia or an own article?-Phips (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- If that is all you can find, make it part of Scouting in Slovenia, but if you can beef it up, make it a separate article with a summary paragraph in Scouting in Slovenia, with a main link to the separate article. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Memphis Belle
Apparently there is some controversy about the first aircraft to complete 25 missions. Some say that another B-17 called "Hell's Angels" (yes, the MC gang was named for it) was the first, but they did not have a documentary (some say because of the name) and did not return to the states for a bond tour. The National Museum of the United States Air Force says about the Memphis Belle: "In May 1943 it became the first U.S. Army Air Forces heavy bomber to complete 25 missions over Europe and return to the United States" [53] (my bolding). This does not clear up the issue completely. If you look at the edit history of the article in question you will see that there was a small edit war about it recently, and I put "one of the..." to defuse the situation. --rogerd (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Mantanmoreland evidence page
Re this thread: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Sauce_for_goose.2C_sauce_for_gander:_where.27s_Weiss.27s_wife_on_WP.3F
- The above thread will stay closed and I hope we don't see any more similar threads. There is no need to hypothesize about RL off wiki interaction. Absent a specific request from an arb to provide such input, contact myself or an arb if you truly feel a need to bring this material up-you could also email it to the arb email list. User:Jayvdb will be making a workshop proposal on this issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Excuse me? We already have similar threads. Why are Jimbo and Cool Hand Luke and G-Dett all allowed to hypothesize about Weiss' off-wiki interactions (using his name), and I'm not? There's not a bit of evidence presented by ANY of them on this case, which isn't explained better by what I suggest. You can't tell two people who live together and agree with each other and care for each other, from an editor and a sock. That's ridiculous! In fact, if you read G-Dett's allusions to the Earp Vendetta Ride page (one which I actually created, BTW), you'll see he missed something obvious. Earp was a gentile who married a Jew. Anyway, I think you owe me an apology for calling my ideas "silly" in public, while the rest of this hypothesizing, which is even sillier, is allowed. I'm waiting. SBHarris 02:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I did not call anything silly, see the edit history, that was someone else. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- With respect, and it's not because i wish to expose myself to ridicule, but SBHarriss has apoint. The stub will not be added to, that can be enforced. For fairness, it is very very short, why not un-hat it? Ignore, if i am out of line, Newbyguesses - Talk 17:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:SenatorHarryTruman71-4135.jpg
I believe that it would be best to delete this picture as soon as possible, because it does not actually depict Truman, and can only cause further confusion. I discuss this more thoroughly on the Commons talk page, with links to other pictures of Truman and the unknown subject of this picture, from the same event. -- Dominus (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
German photos, law...
Please check out http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=101635 . A photograph exists of Baldur von Schirach together with Futara Yoshinori as spectators at fight games of the Hitlerjugend in Bremen, taken August 15, 1937. It says something really small at the side. You're really good at this stuff-can you help get an image that is _not_ marked on? Thanks Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, it says "Database fix in progress" Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Silver Star edit
That silver star edit as made before you told me about the error. I have gone back and started going through all of the recipients of the Silver and Bronze star but it takes a while to go through 1800 articles.--Kumioko (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
SSP archiving
We have a bot, yet you still manually archive. Please refrain from doing this. Thank you. — E talk 06:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
William Hillcourt
Hello Rlevse. Re Hillcourt, I can only offer a few suggestions/questions.
More sentence variety and/or longer sentences would be beneficial in paragraphs like "While Hillcourt studied pharmacy in Copenhagen..." and "Hillcourt was recognized for his service..." (three "He"s in a row).When did he change his name?Give more prominence earlier in the article (lead?) to his having authored three editions in 12.6 million copies of the Handbook. And more detail on his work in this area, if available. For someone not familiar with scouting, this seems like his most "understandable" achievement.Recast sentence to not start with a number: "12,610,000 copies...".Mention a year for the main photo.Clarify "Indian dance". Presumably native American?also known as "Scoutmaster to the World"—not explained further.Writing B-P's biography is interesting. More detail available?Take the opportunity to describe links like "Scoutcraft". Can't hurt, it's not a long article.
–Outriggr § 06:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Request for Arbcom clerk.
Rlevse, I believe as clerk for the current arbcom. case, i can ask your assistance. I wish to present evidence to the arbcom., to be uploaded to the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence. I have prepared my best draft at [54]. Would you advise me if it is order to upload this as my evidence, or if there are any adjustments that are necessary, before it is suitable for uploading. I am unsure as to any deadline for submissions. I believe I have the right to provide evidence, a course which is not necessarily to my liking, and bearing in mind that I am a relatively inexperienced User, I ask for some forbearance if my application veers to the unlearned.Newbyguesses - Talk 12:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone can present evidence in an arb case. For your draft, make MM's own statements standout, like put them in italics or something. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you check this sock?
I got to know that why I have been chased by so many Japanese people since December. They made two treads at 2channel, Japanese bulletin board famous for anti-Korean sentiment.
- Talk:Sea of Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21.
- http://society6.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/korea/1198939173/ :translation tool for not Japanese speaker
It is filled with personal attacks and racial slurs against only me such as Chosenjin, hwabyeong patient, psycho, institutionalized mentally deranged person, irrational person, stupid, .etc. I translated some of the Japanese thread at Talk:Sea of Japan. I'm so exhausted of all these dramas, so didn't consider to report it at ANI or Arbicom, but the meatpuppet and sockpuppet of Azukimonaka/KoreanShoriSenyou/Orchis29 are haunting around me and pushing POV much. I talked to admin, LordAmeth who can read Japanese, and advised me to post it at ANI. see this User_talk:LordAmeth#Need_a_guideline
Before reporting the incident at ANI, I want you to look at this people.
and 2008FromKawasaki (talk · contribs) are emerging again and look like obvious sock of Azukimonaka per the same interest and writing style, especially "erroneous". I believe these editors are also socks of him, and are proved as sock to each other at RFCU but they were not infinitely blocked. They abusively used the accounts though. You can also check it again from the collapsed boxes of my past SSP on Azukimonaka.
- the erroneous information
They write poor wording in English and the literary word, erroneous is not commonly used and is likely for non-English speakers to see it in advanced test preparation books like GRE, GMAT.
- [55] by 2008FromKawasaki (talk · contribs)
- [56](As for phonmonky Best, the source is wrong. And, the erroneous information is being written. Please think well again.) by ShinjukuXYZ (talk · contribs)
- [57] He often writes the erroneous information. He calls all users who corrected his mistake Socks though we correct his mistake. We will be able to participate in the article without using IP if you cooperate so that a Japanese user may contribute to the article on Japan. To our regret, all users who pointed out the mistake of Appletree are indicted as Socks. by 124.87.134.96 (talk · contribs)
I can't file another RFCU files right now because my two files are not finished and you advised me not to use it much. But I couldn't help plead this again to you. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- 2008-02-16T01:24:06 by 211.131.78.108
- 2008-02-16T05:22:11 by 211.131.78.108
- 2008-02-16T05:41:02 by 211.131.78.108
- 2008-02-16T22:23:08 by 211.131.78.108
- 2008-02-18T06:54:11 apanese imperial household is not being written in House of Yi though a Korean king married a Japanese princess. Similarly, this information is unnecessary.by 2008FromKawasaki
Also, being written in is one of cliche that Azukimonaka used a lot, so you can confirm it from the collapsed boxes of Azukimonaka SSP fileWikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Azukimonaka.
And see the Koreans in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The personal attacks are written in the Japanese thread, and some of them said they intentionally made edit warring with me to tease me. --Appletrees (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Diffs, give me diffs, and who's User:Zainichi Koreans? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I also think the new user, Coraroidman (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) seems like a sock of Azukimonaka per their same interest and writings. Azukimonaka loved to edit cuisine related article or insert images. He claims he or her is a Vietnamese in Vietnam and made some edit on Vietnamese articles and then directly went to vote for his /her support for Sea of Japan. After that he keep inserting POV article regardless of my suggestion to use Talk page.
South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2008-02-13T23:57:22 by Coraroidman
- 2008-02-15T09:38:00 by Coraroidman
- 2008-02-16T20:48:09 by Coraroidman
- 2008-02-17T04:09:55 by Coraroidman
- 2008-02-17T18:38:31 by Coraroidman
- 2008-02-18T04:04:32 by Coraroidman
- 2008-02-18T06:27:03 by 2008FromKawasaki
- 2008-02-18T06:36:23 by 2008FromKawasaki
- [58] by 2008FromKawasaki
At RFCU case, Zainichi Koreans is unrelated to 2008FromKawasaki, but given the fact that I had been stalked by User:Amazonfire for quite some time, I think Zainichi Koreans is amazonfire. And some of their contributions were erased because of several violation of rules. --Appletrees (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- I copy and paste the diffs of Azukimonaka's being written in cliche from the SSP file.
| was being writtten |
|---|
| Kamosuke = Azukimonaka = KorenaShoriSenyou = Orchis29 = ShinjukuXYZ = NekoNekoTeacher = Necmate = 43.244.133.167
I believe these people are the same editor per the following reasons. If you see it, you will notice the users' interests are all similar and same pattern of writing such as using passive sentences rather than active sentences such as concealed or denied. They like using "insistence" and "ground" or "groundless" rather claim, assertion or than citation, source, or evidence, etc. I'm not good at writing in English but they all make the same errors in tense such as "was being hated by" etc. The below are distinctive examples for the claim that they're all the same person.
As for Kamosuke, he and HaradaSanosuke are the banned socks on August 2006 and are Softbank odn ISP users = 211.131.78.52[59]. Their (actually one person) writing style remarkably resemble that of Azukimonaka, KoreanShoriSenyou, Orchis29. I haven't looked through Kamasuke's contribution history, but he also made the same errors in writing past tense. ("was being written by someone") Kamosuke created his account at 2005-11-19T08:01:02.[60] According to the remain block log, He had been a long-time abusive troll and I strongly believe he has transformed as new edior with countless sock puppetry.
This apparent sock ip doesn't seem to be a dynamic address. I think this should be blocked infinitely as well.
Although ShinjukuXYZ was proven as a sock of NekoNekoTeacher, they were not infinitely blocked. They seem abusively used the accounts though. I think this account should be infinitely blocked along with another sock accounts.
|
--Appletrees (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- There are no personal attacks in those diffs; what you have is protracted content disputes on various articles, like the Liancourt Rocks case. You should try the dispute resolution process I think, start with mediation on the articles and editor behavior, then arbcom if need be. If you have socking, file SSP, but be concise and to the point, with good diffs. You tend to be too wordy. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Those diffs are not holding personal attacks against me, but the people of the Japanese board did to their bulletin board. I presented you the same writing style of Azukimonaka and them. I've tried to talk to them, so that's why I just added fact tags or suggested to provide sources except blatant blanking without good reason. But they just added very controversial without discussion. I'm fed up with this tendentious edit warring. I want to make it compact but if so, I have to make more SSP or RFCU files. --Appletrees (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thatcher removal
What are you removing someone else's evidence for? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Did I remove someone else's evidence? I thought I removed evidence from my section only. Cla68 (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Possible SSP?
Do User:152.91.9.144 and User:CygnetSaIad's edit histories look similar enough to warrant an RFCU? I'm seeing that the IP was hit with an "accidental" autoblock applied to Cygnet. And for an IP, he has a tendancy to turn up right in the middle of heated debates. MBisanz talk 03:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom -evidence
What is the procedure for submitting further evidence, if available? Just add to my section, don't think I am over the ord or DIFF!! limit yet.
Is there a deadline for submission?Newbyguesses - Talk 21:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
WIKZILLA
Thanks for your prompt action in the sockpuppetry case. You will be interested to know that shortly after Downtrip’s block several IP addresses and one account identifying themselves as Wikizilla’s appeared and attempted to deface my talckpage. [62] thereby confirming the suspicions of Downtrip’s association with Wikizilla. The edits themselves were reverted by other editors however, if you see nothing against it would it be possible to semiprotect my user page for a while to save others trouble.Freepsbane (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Apology from a minor editor
At Yes, I do apologize for mis-identifying the clerk in this very thread, and can only blame it on my dyslexia computersaurus!. [63].Newbyguesses - Talk 17:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Ehud's numbers
The 14th was Morven who is listed as away but he started voting. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
RFCU+, what next?
That questionable IP and the almost stale-user were confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/CygnetSaIad that he are User:CygnetSaIad operating from an anon. IP. What is the proper response here? Warning, block, AN, etc? MBisanz talk 03:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. The possibility of the IP now being another named account due to the IP changing makes a decision harder. It seems (do you agree) the nature of the IP's edits changed after Salad was blocked, but was this because of the block or because the IP was reallocated? Hmm. Maybe contact the other named account and see what he says. The most non obvious CU case I've seen, as far as what to do with the CU results. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yea I'll contact him. But I can't help but think that Alison would've never returned a positive if there was any hint that 2 registered users based from different originating IPs might be on the current one. And this post to her talk page User_talk:Alison#Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser.2FCase.2FCygnetSaIad with the abbrev. "CS" does seem more linked to Cygnet. Since there isn't any vandalism in progress, there is no need to jump the gun and for me to do something stupid. I'll get back to you on this one. MBisanz talk 14:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, very interesting. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- WHOIS tracks the IP back to http://cybertrust.com/ which looks like a proxy/anonymizer operator. I've filed a request Open Proxies to have it checked. This could explain why there is the double hit, but what is the policy on admins using open proxies? MBisanz talk 17:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, very interesting. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yea I'll contact him. But I can't help but think that Alison would've never returned a positive if there was any hint that 2 registered users based from different originating IPs might be on the current one. And this post to her talk page User_talk:Alison#Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser.2FCase.2FCygnetSaIad with the abbrev. "CS" does seem more linked to Cygnet. Since there isn't any vandalism in progress, there is no need to jump the gun and for me to do something stupid. I'll get back to you on this one. MBisanz talk 14:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm no proxy expert, but I think the open proxies and anonymizers are to be blocked. If you user IRC, you could ask in the admin channel (which you're now eligible for). I think User:Ryan Postlethwaite knows about them too. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, it ended up being a corporate exit node, not an open proxy, which explains many things. On an unrelated note, is there any policy covering a user who leaves under uncontroversial circumstances and returns under a new identity? I'm 95% sure I've just run across a case of that, but wouldn't want to violate WP:OUTING unless there is a good reason. MBisanz talk 03:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm sending you an email since there is a related concern. I followed the IRC arbcom, so I'm acquinted with its functions and purpose. I'll probably eventually join, but I'm waiting for Arbcom's ruling on the admin channel. I'm a firm believer that all actions should at least be justified on-wiki, and this nebulous status as to IRC (posting of logs, ownership, etc), has scared me off for the time being. MBisanz talk 04:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
article help
Hi. could you please keep an eye on Talk:Israeli settlement? The article is currently edit-protected. This is part of the topical area of Israeli-Palestinian articles, covered by a previous ArbCom case. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Pages getting long
Note to clerk: re Mantanmoreland arbcom case, I am experiencing continuing computer difficultes, and now that in particular the /Workshop page has got so long, it may become impossible for me to post further evidence, or reply to queries.
If that is so, and you wish to contact me, please do so at Newbyguesses. I should also mention, that this proceeding is taking a gruelling toll on me, and does not even seem to have completed the preliminary phases.
It may become necessary for me to take a break from these proceedings. I hope it is obvious that my comments are all sincerely meant. It may be that i would benefit from a Wikibreak—Newbyguesses - Talk 12:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's not much I can do about the long pages, it is a rather involved case. I'm sure you mean well. Arb cases are grueling by their nature. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what Arbcom's precedent is, but the whole reason Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:hopiakuta was created was that user couldn't edit pages longer than 32K (old computer I think), so a subpage was created that he could post to. Maybe Newbyguesses comments could be linked to where he wants them posted and moved over? MBisanz talk 14:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thankyou , MBisanz, for your suggestion. I am still able to get on-line, and post to these pages, at the moment, although my access is intermittent, and it is quite slow to make a post there. I may avail myself of such an arrangement, if necessary. For now, I must say that I am quite happy with the assistance that the clerk is courteously providing to me. Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 19:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you puter is that old, you really should get a newer one if possible. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, see [[User Talk:Newbyguesses#Computer problems|]],
- UPDATE NBG can log on from various public terminals (at extortionate rates), donations gratefully accepted for a new lap-top, or secondhand cheep unit. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Lots Of OOOO Laughs~
- PS:When I am on-line, I am opening a zillion windows, all on the arbcom., I thoroughly recomment it as a great way to become confused beyond all belief! Newbyguesses - Talk 20:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you puter is that old, you really should get a newer one if possible. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thankyou , MBisanz, for your suggestion. I am still able to get on-line, and post to these pages, at the moment, although my access is intermittent, and it is quite slow to make a post there. I may avail myself of such an arrangement, if necessary. For now, I must say that I am quite happy with the assistance that the clerk is courteously providing to me. Thanks, Newbyguesses - Talk 19:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know what Arbcom's precedent is, but the whole reason Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/User:hopiakuta was created was that user couldn't edit pages longer than 32K (old computer I think), so a subpage was created that he could post to. Maybe Newbyguesses comments could be linked to where he wants them posted and moved over? MBisanz talk 14:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Request (RE:Mantanmoreland and BLP)
I strongly object to User:Crum375 editing other people's evidence section under the guise of "Removing BLP violations", on the evidence page, unilaterally, without asking the other side to refactor first, and in full knowledge of how controversial his action would be. [64] and [65] could you please review the information provided, and then if found to be a BLP violation, go through everyone else's submissions on the ArbCom case (such as a banned user being called a blackmailer, without evidential backup), and remove them as well. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No big deal, comes with the clerking job. See ev talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I also strongly object to User:Crum375 editing other people's evidence section under the guise of "Removing BLP violations", and note the many objections to this action by Crum375 on the talk page(s). I apologise if any of my posts were needlessly inflammatory, I do not think I was the most extreme, or that my comments there were unjustified. Thanks for your efforts, Rlevse, the clerk's job isn't easy. Newbyguesses - Talk 19:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
KL and Claymort
Currently we have the issue with KL but also with another vandal called Greg Jungwirth aka Claymort who DLC has figured might be Komodo Lover seeing as both talk to their previous identities as other people and pretend to be several people at once. I've asked him to file a RFCU on their most recently active accounts even though one comes from Rhode Island and the other from Atlanta so probably won't reveal anything. Besides that, there's a pending SSP case for Greg's sockpuppets and as they've became increasingly aggressive towards me since I filed the case so if you can could you go check it over? Thanks. treelo talk 14:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- So, no help on this then? I'll ask another admin if they'll help if you can't so I don't waste yours or my time. --treelo talk 23:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
How do I delete a page I created?
I want to delete User:Sparkygravity/Socks because just in case I make more userboxes I created User:Sparkygravity/userboxes/socks. So now I have an extraneous page.--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- I deleted it for you, only admins can delete pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent, Thanks--Sparkygravity (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
BSA Article
Because you seemed to be picking on gothangel when she had a valid point here, you seem to want to remove the word Boys and men and male from every artcile and every passage on that article which I presonally don't agree with with. I cant understand how you can have so much mention of women and girls in a male-dominant article. It does not make logical sense. You have now threeatened me, which I find appalling. --Steven Hipkins (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
note to clerk re BLP?
There is quite a schemozzle, it seems, about whether these BLP? or external links are allowed in evidence, or even if RL names in evidence, are allowed. Whatever is the ruling, I am content, but I wish to draw to your attention to a number of similar entries to these possibleBLP? that occur in the Evidence presented by Georgewilliamherbert.
If all are these links and mentions are allowed, fine, then they should all be restored in every instance where they were wrongly removed by Crum375, but if no links or names are allowed, then i think they must be removed from ALL sections of evidence, and that would include mine, and GWH's. thankyou, Newbyguesses - Talk 00:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC) (note to self - Post to /evidence#newbygwhen next online)
Passions
I didn't do that. Melbrooksfan101 talk 04:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Uh, yes you did afd tag Passions, [66] — Rlevse • Talk • 04:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Someone hacked into my site. Melbrooksfan101 talk 04:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Admin Coaching Re-confirmation
Hello, previously you expressed interest in participating in the Wikipedia:Admin coaching project. We are currently conducting a reconfirmation drive to give coaches the opportunity to update their information and capacity to participate in the project. Please visit Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status to update your status and move your entry to the Active list. Also, please remember to update your capacity (5th table variable) in the form of a fraction (eg. 2/3 means you are currently coaching 2 students, and could accept 1 more student). Thank you. MBisanz talk 09:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course you are free to comment...
...but given that you up and left Wikipedia in a huff the last time you got into a dispute with me, I would appreciate it if you did not continue down this road of hounding me. Your last comment on WP:AE was particularly unbecoming. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I did not file the AE case nor did I do anything to cause it, you did that. You should realize that. My last statement was mere fact. Now as for Raul654 unblocking you...Since he has a history with you to the point of having to recuse himself from an arbcom when he was a sitting arb--wouldn't that make him involved and biased? Or is it okay since he unblocked you vice blocked you? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- In this response there are all a lot of red herrings and changing of the subject. If I'm making you uncomfortable, just stop getting involved in disputes where I show up. We aren't talking about you filing the case, nor are we talking about you doing anything to cause that, nor are we talking about User:Raul654. Your last statement is not "mere fact": it's clearly an attempt to muddy the waters and without providing any evidence. It looks a lot like attempting to be punitive (something you have a history of doing with respect to me). You seem to be continuing to stake out a very confrontational territory. I'm warning you to be careful in how you proceed because there is history you are very much aware of, and it's not pretty. Do not think that because you are an administrator that means that you have the right to behave untowardly with impunity. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- I did not file the AE case nor did I do anything to cause it, you did that. You should realize that. My last statement was mere fact. Now as for Raul654 unblocking you...Since he has a history with you to the point of having to recuse himself from an arbcom when he was a sitting arb--wouldn't that make him involved and biased? Or is it okay since he unblocked you vice blocked you? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
My recusal in the paranormal arbcom decision had absolutely nothing to do with SA. I recused because less than a month before that arbcom case, Martinphi was disrupting the FA process (over the parapsychology FAC nom) and I nearly blocked him (Martinphi) for it. Raul654 (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I strongly encourage you to refactor this...
This is exceedingly rude to me and Raul. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks ScienceApologist, you lecturing people on rudeness is the best wiki-laugh I've had in weeks. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's a personal attack, Sumo. I'm going to report it to WP:WQA. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment
I have commented here
FT2 (Talk | email) 21:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:AE formatting
I think the reason the Completed Requests section keeps disappearing is that the bot is archiving it. See my edits to /archive14 fixing it. You might look at diffs just before the bot to see if there is a simple reason, otherwise maybe contact the bot owner. Maybe it doesn't like = Sections = . Thatcher 23:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
RfC
Me and several other editors have been drafting an RfC on JzG here. We listed an effort by you to influence his behavior in the past but don't necessarily expect you to be one of the certifiers for the RfC. But, if you'd to look it over and tell us if you think anything that we listed is unfair or inaccurate before we post it, that would be very helpful. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
FAing
This Wilt Chamberlain looks like the kind of article I could take to an FA-status? its got a large number of cites, but could use some content reoganziation and wiki-formatting. And its already a GA. MBisanz talk 05:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Ehud case
Hi Rlevse, yesterday Didodo (a sock of AA banned user Fadix) added some evidence to the Ehud proposed decision talk page, I blocked and reverted. Now VartanM (good standing user, no issue there) has restored Fadix comments, endorsing them himself. As a result, I think it should probably stay even though it was a banned user. I've quickly scanned it, and it is relevant to Adil, so I've kicked off a formal CU here. --John Vandenberg (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, it's hard to watch everything. I'll look into it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Admin Coach Match
Hello Rlevse, I have been matched with you for Admin Coaching. I would like to introduce you, so we can get started with what you would like to teach me. My name is Dusti, I am 18, and I live at ISSCH. I have been editing on Wikipedia since April 4th, 2007, according to the account creation log. I would like to become an Admin to better Wikipedia. Granted, an editor can better Wiki by simply adding to articles, however, with the tools Admin's have, you can do a whole lot more to better the encyclopedia. I feel that after becoming an admin, I can do a lot more than what I have been doing, which is RC patrol, NP patrol, and some AFD stuff. I look forward to working with you. Unfortunatley, because I am living here at ISSCH, I do not yet have access to an email account. I will be graduating soon in May, and will have an email account when I attend College soon thereafter. I look forward to hearing from you! Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 18:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean someone matched you to me or you picked me all on your own? Just curious. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW I did the matching at WP:Admin Coaching. Just because I suggest a match though, doesn't mean a coach is obliged to accept the student. Its sorta like an introduction. MBisanz talk 18:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- sorry, I wasn't watching the page. Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 18:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is this ok? Please let me know. Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 18:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- FWIW I did the matching at WP:Admin Coaching. Just because I suggest a match though, doesn't mean a coach is obliged to accept the student. Its sorta like an introduction. MBisanz talk 18:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It's fine. If MBisanz recommends you to me, that's all I need to know. We'll start later today. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am only on Wikipeda (at the moment) from 12-3 usually. Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 19:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
ArbComm clerking
Can you tend to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop#Possibly urgent -- need Arbcom/Clerk clarification on BLP? GRBerry 20:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Add also this resumed edit war in someone else's section of the evidence page. [67], [68], [69]. GRBerry 21:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Protect/Unprotect on Evidence page
I undid my own protection, as I noted that the Clerks were taking action and I didn't want my act (as an interested party) to remain once the "emergancy" had been dealt with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for Assistance
I appreciate your input. I have followed up on my user talk page. Thanks. --AeronM (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
For Ariel: Please pass this on...
A friend sent this under the heading "Clean can be Funny." Truth to tell it had me in stitches, but then I needed it. Now you be the judge: Fifty-one years ago, Herman James, a North Carolina mountain man, was drafted by the Army. On his first day in basic training, the Army issued him a comb. That afternoon the Army barber sheared off all his hair. On his second day, the Army issued Herman a toothbrush. That afternoon the Army dentist yanked seven of his teeth. On the third day, the Army issued him a jock strap. The Army has been looking for Herman for 51 years. Thank you Rlevse, Shir-El too 00:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Possible SSP
User:Tom.mevlie is almost certainly a sock of a banned user after seeing this comment [70]. Does the MO of seeking adoption, Wikiproject International Relations, and very odd phrasing of this apology [71] for this [72] ring any bells? MBisanz talk 16:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Very likely a sock, sounds familiar but I can't think of who the master is. Can you? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Checked long-term abuse and none looked familiar. Vaguely similar editing style to User:Kappa whose comment he edited here [73]. Another one for me to watch MBisanz talk 16:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No comprendo
I've just noticed this comment on my (WordBomb's) talk page, but I'm not clear what it means.
Sorry I'm just getting back to you. I pretty much never go to that page. But I'll make a point of doing so moving forward.--WordMail (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| For your excellent clerking on a RFAR case that turned out to be a real Fozzie of a Bear of a problem. Dr. Extreme (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks :)
I didn't know about that RfA log - many thanks for adding the info there :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment at Mantanmoreland ArbCom
As the clerk, should you be commenting at all? I realise that you may have opinions and work with the Arbs in formulating a lot of what appears on the pages but aren't you supposed to be the only party that stays dumb? It will be too late to remove or strike now, but perhaps one of the arbs will proxy your opinions if you really feel the need to comment. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- To a point you have point. I'm sure you're confused now. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing new there, then... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- To a point you have point. I'm sure you're confused now. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Oops
Oops, I misread. Thanks for telling me. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge clarification
Hi. Could you please un-archive my request for clarification of the Ferrylodge case? It has not been clarified, since the two admins who commented leaned towards applying the decision to talkspace, while the admin who closed the AE thread apparently took home a different message. Ferrylodge is disruptive in talkspace and articlespace. I'd like concrete clarification or amendment to indicate that the decision either applies to all namespaces or is restricted to articlespace. Thanks. MastCell Talk 04:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- It applies to all namespaces, see [74] — Rlevse • Talk • 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the thing is this. Ferrylodge's case reads that he may be banned from any "article" which he disrupts. User:GRBerry, who closed my AE thread on Ferrylodge, interpreted the Macedonia finding to mean that Ferrylodge's sanctions applied to "articles" but not to talk pages ([75]). In which case, I need to reopen my request, because I think it is essential that Ferrylodge's remedies apply to talkspace since that is where he is (and has always been) at his most disruptive. I've asked GRBerry to touch base with you - could you help me straighten this out with him? I'm sorry to bug you further, but I'd really like this nailed down, because it keeps coming up, Ferrylodge keeps talking his way out of sanctions, and the underlying problems are still there. MastCell Talk 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- It applies to all namespaces, see [74] — Rlevse • Talk • 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Arbs
The arbs have a lot to do and I'm sure are giving the case its fair share of attention. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I also have a lot to do. I am also sure that they are giving the case its fair share of attention, in fact I wouldn't bother posting anything to their talk pages if I thought to the contrary. However I feel in the massive amount of evidence and discussion by others, my evidence may have been overlooked. Furthermore I presented my evidence a bit late. Had arbcom declined my evidence with a rational explanation I would not be overworking myself this much. -- Cat chi? 05:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. That user requests to be unblocked. Judging by the tone of his unusually articulate unblock request, I'd say we can risk giving him another chanca. What do you think? Sandstein (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
JzG RfC
A user conduct RfC involving the actions of JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in which you have been mentioned is about to go live and will be found at WP:RFC/U shortly. ViridaeTalk 11:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Userpage protection
Hope you don't mind that I protected your userpage for a short while. IPs aren't on the constructive side today for some reason. :) Regards, Rudget. 14:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
RFCU on User:Vr
I've created the RFCU here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Vr. BTW, the banner on that page says "to the checkuser page here" which seems to be an out-of-date way of creating a new request. Someone should fix that but I've no idea who handles this part of WP. I've never raised an RFCU before, so if I've done something wrong, feel free to tweak it. Colin°Talk 19:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- You did fine. I fixed the link. Alison accepted the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Five more, all with the same user page style. When Alison said "as well as numerous loggings-out to edit" does that mean editing "anonymously" as an IP? If so, is the IP blocked too? What stops this person creating another account? Thanks for dealing with this, I wasn't sure about doing an RFCU as the page has so many "you shouldn't be here" warnings. It didn't occur to me that it could be used to find other socks too. Colin°Talk 23:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- You did fine. I fixed the link. Alison accepted the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||
Hello
Checking in. What's new? Dustitalk to me 16:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not much except I've nom'd another user, User:Gadget850 for admin. How's your admin related work going? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is going well. I have joined a couple of comittees and am working away. Anything that you want me to do? Dustitalk to me 18:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Check in with me around 18-19 Mar and we'll do a status check. Mainly you need experience right now. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, thanks again! Dustitalk to me 18:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Check in with me around 18-19 Mar and we'll do a status check. Mainly you need experience right now. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is going well. I have joined a couple of comittees and am working away. Anything that you want me to do? Dustitalk to me 18:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not much except I've nom'd another user, User:Gadget850 for admin. How's your admin related work going? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Help please
The memory of water page seems to be under attack by a series of different IP editors. Now I have certainly used up my reverts but cannot deal with this editing. They are anonymous casual visitors and refuse to discuss the changes. What can I do? Am I allowed to simply revert them? Being new to this I am unsure what channel to follow as if I assume good faith, they are not real vandals. The Tutor (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't characterise correcting a misleading edit as an "attack". There seems to be more than one person involved in correcting this mistake. The original version of the sentence was correct and supported, it was changed by DullMan into a parody of its original and supported meaning, and is now much fuller and informative for the subsequent little back and forth. It seems to not be vandalism (certainly not my intention) nor an "attack" --206.222.28.93 (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- According to two places on wikipedia, this user is Martin Chaplin. Perhaps a checkuser is required? (Note I am the same editor who left the comment on his page in answer to yours, that he removed --195.141.76.131 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rlevse, I thank you for your help on this page but my edit was reverted before your restrictions came in to force. This has now been reverted. I am happy to Talk to editors concerning our different perceptions concerning the phrase in question and its support or otherwise by the references, but clearly this has never been the intention of this group of editors. Clearly it is no longer proper for me to revert, but such changes should be properly debated on the Talk page, as I have been requesting all day. I feel the edit now is quite different to what it was originally, definitely someones POV and very far from being a correct conclusion drawn from the references given. I wonder whether the issue here is not the 'Water Memory' but something more personal. The Tutor (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please rethink your page protection of the Water Memory article? The editor that requested it obviously did this so he could gain the upper hand in a content dispute, as evidenced by the fact he decided to "fix" the page right after you protected it, knowing full well that none of the IP's would be able to edit the page. If you look at the edits from the IP's and the actual reference, you will see that the IP edits in no way hurt the article. Baegis (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- This perhaps, indicates that the several references (not one reference) given has not been read by the anonymous editors. I believe that the rapid reversion by such a number of 'different' anonymous 'passing by' editors shows a clear 'guiding light'. I did not do this to gain any upper hand (show a bit of AGF!) but they all refused to Talk; just see who has 'won' and how they 'won' a totally new (and rather perverse) edit without any Talk. The Tutor (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm filing and RFCU on this myself. There's obviously something fishy here. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with my edit?
Hi, as a newcomer editor I'd like to know what was wrong with my edit on the Medal of Honor page.
1 cool guy (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Ellis?
Can you take a look at Kurt Turkulney (talk · contribs) and decide if this is another User:Arthur Ellis sock? I blocked an IP this morning following this edit that included signing as Ellis. This user came to the RM page this evening, and his contribs are 90% Kinsella and RM related, which were two Ellis focuses. But, given the situation, any Wikipedian with interests in Canadian politics might well come to this article now. And I don't know Ellis well enough to judge for sure - but my intuition is saying the user probably is. GRBerry 04:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
edit war on my talk page
I have an edit war going on my own talk page. I've replied, it's not enough, they have to get the last word in. It's the cyber equivalent of junk mail. One has even gone so far to comb my edit history for missteps. What can I do to stop the Wikistalking? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:OurCabañaLogo.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:OurCabañaLogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
How to proceed an Arbicom case?
Your previous remark on me is right. I'm apt to make very lengthy files or too vague files for sysops to have a difficulty to figure out what is a problem with my report. However, this long-time (over 4 years) disruptions by Japanese editors from the off-wiki bulletin board, 2channel is way too big for me alone to deal with.
I don't know how to proceed the case because the related people are over 30 and I'm the one against their disruption so far. I recently notified of this incident(s) to several Korean editors but I don't know they would participate in the process if I file it to arbicom. You've seen my filing RFCU, SSP, and AIV a lot, so can you take a look at the link and give me an advice? thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:RFAR. You need to be concise and to the point. Only enough to show long term abuse and that you've tried to resolve it before and those efforts failed. Use prior RFAR cases as samples. The time to present lots of detail comes later if the case is accepted. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the answer, but I'm very afraid of a possible bad result if I, only participate in compared to many 2channel people. I had a similar experience when Nanshu (talk · contribs) filed a bogus report on me [76]to stop RFCU files on them and he later said his plan at 2channel. --Appletrees (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Roast turkey
Rlevse, I think you have confused me with somebody else. [77] I have no conflicts or involvement with Igor, other than having had a few friendly chats with him past, and today having counseled him a few times to lay off the drama. As VirtualSteve noted, I have been generally supportive towards Igor. However, I could not ignore Igor's use of my talk page to make attacks on third parties. Would you be willing to strike out your comment? Jehochman Talk 03:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think I'm confused, I quote "
- I just blocked him for 24 hours for a comment he made on my talk page. Jehochman Talk 23:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)", so you blocked someone with whom you were directly involved with. I'm not saying it wasn't justified, I'm saying admins should never take admin actions against those with whom they are involved. That's common sense. You really should know better. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with your analysis of the situation, and I think you have misunderstood. I've left comments at WP:ANI on the existing thread inviting you to provide a detailed explanation with diffs. Sorry I am being dense, but I really want to try to understand where you are coming from. My involvement with Igor has only been friendly, non-adversarial conversation. That does not disqualify me. Heck, I try to be friendly to everybody. Just because somebody chats me up doesn't mean I can't block them if they step way out of line, especially if they start using my talk page to attack third parties. He wasn't on my talk page complaining about me. No. He came to me complaining about third parties. I discouraged this, and eventually another administrator warned Igor to stop. When he continued the abuse right under my nose, I really could not pretend to ignore it. Anyhow, if you can't make me understand, please go find another party to review this situation and ask them to give their opinion to me. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 03:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Block
Hi Rlevse,
Guy thinks it is Tom Butler [78] [79]
It is not Tom, and I know who it is- a WP user in good standing. The WP user has nothing on its block log. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Uploading image
I come here to you for a help. I want to use this image in the article Animal rights in Nazi Germany. But I am still not well-versed in uploading image manually outside of Flickr through flickr upload bot. I am a bit confused about the license and the process of manual upload. Can you please help here or upload it in wikipedia. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Some questions, it's not on Flickr so what has flickr got to do with it? How do we know the copyright status? Do you have a sharper image?-this one is fuzzy. I can upload it but please answer the questions. Oh, and how did you come to find me?-just curious. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the problem I am also facing here what is the license. It is the only image I found in the internet. I found you through recent change patrolling. The image will be deleted if it is copyrighted, but it is hard to know its copyright status. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's FU, see [80] — Rlevse • Talk • 20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Bad luck. But thanks for your help. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- If it is possible, then it will be good to upload the image for the article. The image will be very appropriate with the subject. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Then I will just request you to please upload the image. It is the most appropriate image for the article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Done, see the article. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Backlog
Hi, there is a backlog at the SSP page and i was just hoping you can take a look at this case i made, [81]. Seems no one has yet looked into it, no one i have contacted has been of help, and the user has used yet another I.P. as a vandalism-only account. One of the users IPs has just vandalized multiple page again and i am seriously getting tired of having to revert all of his mess everyday. Please look into it. -- LaNicoya •Talk• 19:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Kahmend? Two 71.x IPs? Did the link redirect you ti the case about Editor652 (talk · contribs · count)? Thats who the case is about.-- LaNicoya •Talk• 22:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
What you need here is a WP:RFCU for IP check. Two separate IP ranges, with several IPs. 22:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the comments on User talk:130.101.152.83. This is the same user; I didn't want to use an account after seeing the mess on paranormal articles in general. 130.101.152.24 (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- The above user is currently blocked, see [82]. If you want to be unblocked, please file a request. Do not hop IPs to avoid a block, as this is abusive sock puppetry and may result in longer blocks. Jehochman Talk 20:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman is right, you just shot yourself in the foot. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about that; I didn't know the other IP was blocked. I actually found out when I went to see if Je had replied and he put the block log link in the edit summary. I'm not going to do any more editing anyway (other than the unblock on that IP). 130.101.152.24 (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't quit, just stay within the rules and stand up for what you believe in. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ignorance of the rules only works once...so be much more careful in the future, 130.xyz... Dreadstar † 20:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't quit, just stay within the rules and stand up for what you believe in. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:AnimalRightsNaziGermany.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:AnimalRightsNaziGermany.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Your message
Look, I have a very short fuse and my patience is being severely tested by some terminally stupid people. Give me a break. Who are you anyway???? The Rationalist (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Why? Why don't these people take a wiki break? Why should I take a Wiki break? The Rationalist (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say less intelligent, I said 'terminally stupid'. We are trying to write an encyclopedia, no? The Rationalist (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I assumed you consider yourself not stupid, you're obviously very intelligent. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm just averagely stupid, it's the terminal Richter 6 stupidity that gets my goat. The Rationalist (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I assumed you consider yourself not stupid, you're obviously very intelligent. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say less intelligent, I said 'terminally stupid'. We are trying to write an encyclopedia, no? The Rationalist (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rlevse, may I urge patience. The indicated links contain offensive words, but some of us believe the aggregate effect of wikilawyering is also uncivil. The Rationalist got caught in a trap (and he should know better) of resorting to harsh language in exasperation. But enless nit-picking (such as arguing the distinction between verified and found true; which is what verify means) grinds us down sometimes. It's unactionable (see e.g. my expired ANI) but I hope it's sufficient cause for a bit of patience. (Incidentally, my ANI was against one of the anti-anti-science camp. All sides seem to be willing to use endless wikilawyering and obfuscation to evade consensus. It drives me nuts.) Pete St.John (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- He can make his point without foul language, being rude, or offensive. Someone had already talked to him on related issue from what I can tell, that's why I warned vice block. This is a collaborative encyclopedia and civility will get you further than offensive language and incivility. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I didn't use any foul language, just the beginning of a word with blanks that anyone can fill in. I have an abhorrence of the real article, FWIW. The Rationalist (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rlevse, may I urge patience. The indicated links contain offensive words, but some of us believe the aggregate effect of wikilawyering is also uncivil. The Rationalist got caught in a trap (and he should know better) of resorting to harsh language in exasperation. But enless nit-picking (such as arguing the distinction between verified and found true; which is what verify means) grinds us down sometimes. It's unactionable (see e.g. my expired ANI) but I hope it's sufficient cause for a bit of patience. (Incidentally, my ANI was against one of the anti-anti-science camp. All sides seem to be willing to use endless wikilawyering and obfuscation to evade consensus. It drives me nuts.) Pete St.John (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
RFCU for IPs?
Thanks for your suggestion that I file an RFCU for the spamming IP addresses. I would like to do that, but I am unsure how to use the RFCU template when the sock master is not a registered account, and all I have is a large bunch of IP addresses, none of which is really the sock master — a situation that the template and the RFCU instructions do not seem to have been designed to handle. I posted a question about RFCU for IPs on WT:SSP. The replies so far have not really addressed the issue I raised. I'd appreciate any advice you could offer over there. - Neparis (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Use a named account if you have it, otherwise pick the most active IP address as the master. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer. Would you copy your reply to WT:SSP under the thread titled "RFCU for IPs"? It would help balance the 100% negative replies that others have posted there questioning the need for an RFCU, a thread of discussion that might be used as a point of reference for the checkuser who handles the RFCU. Thanks, - Neparis (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Reminder
Just as a reminder, if you delete a page, you should close out the AFD. I did these for you (Noveninsk and Andrzej Koswakij). SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, I got distracted. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Just bringing it to your attention. Kudos at it were. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, I got distracted. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
About the behavior of Appletrees
I have been perplexed to his behavior. What contribution can I do? (I do not want to be hated by him. And, I want to avoid the edit battle. )
I introduce my denied contribution.
Chosun Ilbo introduced Namdaemun. "Namdaemun was specified for the national treasure No.1 by a Japanese empire. The South Korean thinks the succession of the specification of a Japanese empire to be disgrace. "[84]"
Appletrees was not able to deny the fact written in this source. Therefore, he tried to conceal this fact shouting, "You are a puppet".
Case2 Japan-Korea relations [85]
Chosun Ilbo analyzed "Japanese boom in South Korea". [86] The South Korean was worshiping the electronic gadget made in Japan when South Korea was poor. However, the South Korean enjoys Japanese food and clothes today.
Appletrees shouted "Vandallism". And, the source was deleted. He doesn't verify the source.
JoongAng Ilbo explained the movie Hanbando. "The end for which Japan apologizes to Korea will satisfy South Korean's anti- Japanese sentiment." [88]
The signature of Ser Myo-ja shouted and he shouted though it was.
He shouted though this was an article with the signature of Ser Myo-ja. "That is not a real "article" written by a reporter. Don' try to fool me again" And, the source was concealed.
I advised. "Do not delete the source without the reason. " He answered. [89] "If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did to Japan-Korea relations, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Again, read the citation, possibly a 2channel meat/sock"
I am a beginner. Please guide me. --Opoona (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'll have to think about this one. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Rlevse. I add my rebuttal to this newbie's statement. WP:ANI#Rebuttal to Opoona (talk · contribs). Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'll have to think about this one. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Philadelphia CSP.png
Could you look at Image:Philadelphia CSP.png? --evrik (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Eliko sockpuppet case
Hi Rlevse, you had recently closed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Eliko with a "let's watch and see" conclusion. About a week after I had started this SSP case, I had also started Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eliko, which concluded with a verdict of "somewhere between possible and confirmed". I'm not sure if you had seen that case when you made your SSP conclusion. Also, per the discussion at User talk:Thatcher#Checkuser follow-up, I'm concerned that Eliko views these case closures as clear proof that he is not the puppetmaster of Manstorius et. al., and no sanctions are necessary. I had also promised to block him or another editor for 7 days if they made any edits to a specific article during a "cool-down" period, (discussion at User talk:Andrwsc/Archive 6#Protection at List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita), which he appears to have done with one of the sockpuppets. Therefore, I don't think a "no action" outcome is entirely appropriate. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The talk on Thatcher's page is today's, so that's new, but the CU case isn't. I did see the CU case. Thatcher states he's okay with my my handling. However, the new talk thread on his page is interesting. Eliko seems to be arguing awful hard for someone that is innocent and he is wrong, the case is not conclusive either way. Manstorius's account is still inactive. If it reactivates or Eliko uses other accounts that are suspicious, feel free to let me know directly. I'm putting a warning on Eliko's page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I indef blocked Manstorius yesterday — "somewhere between possible and confirmed" is close enough for me to take that action, and
{{unblock}}can always be used if he disputes it. I'm still concerned that Eliko is getting away with breaking an agreement (also made with User:CieloEstrellado) not to edit their disputed article for a week or get blocked for 7 days, but I guess Eliko is on an extremely short leash as a result of this casework. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)- I'm not full up on the agreement you refer to. Drop a warning on his page about it and if he does it again, I'll block him, up to a week. Discuss the agreement details on his talk page so that I can be up to snuff enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The agreement is discussed in the link to my (archived) talk page at the top of this thread. In a nutshell, this whole sockpuppet investigation was precipitated by the following chain of events:
- I happened to make an edit to List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita when I discovered I had dropped into the middle of an edit war between Eliko and CieloEstrellado.
- I protected the article for a week when the two of them continued their edit-warring, both just staying within 3RR limits.
- CieloEstrellado complained bitterly on my talk page about the protection, and in the ensuing discussion, they both promised to resolve their content dispute on a sandbox version of the article if I unprotected the page, and they both agreed to my promise of a 7 day block if they edited the mainspace version of the article within the next week.
- SSnormal (one of the socks) did make an edit during that week, and CieloEstrellado had suspicions that it was a sockpuppet. I did too, as I had encountered SSnormal a couple of weeks earlier, and the related discussion on my talk page (User talk:Andrwsc/Archive 6#country names) was remarkably similar to Eliko's writing style. Therefore, I pored through the old diffs to prepare the SSP case.
- So, the current situation is that the SSP/CU cases are likely but not 100% conclusive, and Eliko has not "paid the price" for his violation of the no-edit agreement on the GDP list. I'm not certain that a warning on his talk page is sufficient. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you say "his violation of the no-edit agreement", whereas you admit that it is not conclusive that Eliko is SSnormal?
- The events you are talking about - are described in the same closed SSP case, whereas Rlevse closed this case with the conclusion: "As there is room for doubt, let's watch". Wikipedians should respect final conclusions reached in closed cases, including any closed SSP case. Eliko (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The agreement is discussed in the link to my (archived) talk page at the top of this thread. In a nutshell, this whole sockpuppet investigation was precipitated by the following chain of events:
- I'm not full up on the agreement you refer to. Drop a warning on his page about it and if he does it again, I'll block him, up to a week. Discuss the agreement details on his talk page so that I can be up to snuff enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I indef blocked Manstorius yesterday — "somewhere between possible and confirmed" is close enough for me to take that action, and
- The talk on Thatcher's page is today's, so that's new, but the CU case isn't. I did see the CU case. Thatcher states he's okay with my my handling. However, the new talk thread on his page is interesting. Eliko seems to be arguing awful hard for someone that is innocent and he is wrong, the case is not conclusive either way. Manstorius's account is still inactive. If it reactivates or Eliko uses other accounts that are suspicious, feel free to let me know directly. I'm putting a warning on Eliko's page. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Eliko, you're on thin ice here, abide by policy and your agreements. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Block evasion?
Rlevse,
As a matter of Wikipedia policies and procedures, if an anon IP has a 30-day block imposed for violation of 3RR, is he then allowed to evade the block by registering? I am referring to blocked IP61.127.11.135, now registered since yesterday's block as Ahoalton JGHowes talk - 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello
We got off on a bad foot and I'm sorry for snapping at you. I saw a real named person being accused of being a sock puppet account, and I don't need to rehash the details, but I wanted to protect a new contributor even if he might be the same person trying to be pseudonymous, since he had done nothing wrong and neither had the real named person. It was clear to me that there was no possibility he could be the same as Unprovoked, and the basis of the RFCU was therefore missing a foundation as I viewed it. Had I not felt an urgency to stop the situation before it got out of control, I would hopefully have been more polite to you. The reputation of the named person seemed paramount to me in that moment, especially if he might wish to return as a pseudonymous editor. —Whig (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Allstarecho/scouts
User:Allstarecho/scouts has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Allstarecho/scouts and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Allstarecho/scouts during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Justinm1978 (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your review and support of this FAC. As suggested, I've moved the following free images to Commons and they can now be deleted at en-Wikipedia:
- Image:Mount Royal Station in 2007.jpg
- Image:B&O Royal Blue model.jpg
- Image:B&O Royal Blue in 1937.jpg
- Image:B&O dining car.jpg
- Image:Mt Royal Station in 1896 (Baltimore).jpg
- Image:B&O Royal Blue in 1898.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
The following images, although now at Commons, presented a problem for me, in that I could not get the HABS url's to display properly inside the template as they do an en-Wikipedia, so I guess I'm making a syntax error somewhere. As a workaround, I've listed the url data separately as "HABS source information" underneath at each image's Commons page:
.jpg){kind=link}
Thanks, JGHowes talk - 18:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Over-ruling Kafziel was a mistake. How can we take you admins seriously if you don't stand by each other?
How hard did you look at the case? Every admin can over-judge - and you yourself have just done it now. If you honestly want some solid advice - I would think harder before over-ruling an admins decision like that. You need to gravitate towards standing by each other if you want to be taken seriously. 72 hours may have been harsh (though I personally just felt relief) - but reducing it as you did (combined with lifting the talk ban too) was far far less wise. WNDL42 accused Kafziel of bias in his original decision - and WNDL42 never stops going, believe me - he's a real wind-up artist. He's also obsessive about controlling articles (he'd been in war on this one not long ago). Kafziel did what he thought was right given WNDL42's behaviour (and WNDLs definitely the type that would benefit from longer to think too).
It seems pretty clear to me that over-ruling Kafziel was quite an easy decision for you, and I am always paranoid on Wikipedia that emails change hands which honest parties like myself cannot see to put right. I know WNDL42 sends them to admins - can you see why I'm paranoid here? And I have to deal with an empowered nuisance-editor now, with a free supply of sweeties RE admin-power he'll happily suck on as long as he can! I just want to take this opportunity to tell you that YOU DON'T!!!! Not a great moment for Wikipedia in my eyes - and I feel I've really struggled for the cause the past day. And don't think mileage won't be made - not every editor acts as rationally as you want them too. WNDL42 had scant regard for policy and authority anyway (though he can be very very polite - especially in his emails I'm sure).--Matt Lewis (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- But admins don't review their own blocks and don't protect a page to silence discussion their involved in. If 2 other admins had reviewed the block and he continued with long winded debates, then protect, we don't protect premtively or self-review because we "know" the blocked user is a troublemaker. And we certainly don't stand by each other against policy. MBisanz talk 03:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with MBisanz above. I'll monitor Windl and take appropriate action if he continues edit warring. Blocks are preventative and not puntative, and with the unfairness of how the blocking and then self-reviewing admin..who then made snarky remarks to top it off, I decided to shorten the block even furhter. And yes, there were several emails to me about this situation. Dreadstar † 04:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like the second over-rule was merely to punish Kafziel. But who benefits and who suffers? (my worry is that no1 is WNDL and no2 is me). I'll sleep on this - I may act. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- This looks like it's all been done by emails behind people's backs (insignificant people like me). I will be acting. What was this? - it's impossible to understand! (and typically removed from sight too, like this). Does transparency mean anything to anyone in this place? Knowing the reasons leading up to the block, being part of the article in question, and knowing the 'style' of the character who was blocked, I have every reason to be paranoid here by the emails flying around. Nobody is even considering transparency regarding these over-rule decisions - and that amazes me. Not just for me - but genuinely for the whole of Wikipedia. Or should I call it Gmailpedia? MY ARGUMENT - These over-rules of Kafziel should have been done in an open way - OR NOT AT ALL. Can I demand to see the emails?--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted page
Hi, would you or one of the other clerks assist me in obtaining a deleted page?[90] Two sources have informed me that Samiharris has a conversation with a known WordBomb sock on that page. I'd like to examine it. DurovaCharge! 07:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Give me time to nose into this. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think there would be any harm in releasing the discussion, but as the case is likely to close in the next 12 hours or so I don't see much practical benefit either. What are you planning to do with it? Thatcher 11:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- That same thought occurred to me about 30 minutes ago, since it's about to close, what good would this do? And what is the need here? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- At the time when I posted that it was unclear how fast the arbs would move to close. Then there was some chance a community discussion would follow and...well...I'm not sure whether it matters one way or the other right now. Thanks for the response. Let's play this by ear. DurovaCharge! 21:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- That same thought occurred to me about 30 minutes ago, since it's about to close, what good would this do? And what is the need here? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think there would be any harm in releasing the discussion, but as the case is likely to close in the next 12 hours or so I don't see much practical benefit either. What are you planning to do with it? Thatcher 11:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Suspected Sockpuppet Dbromage
Rlevse, I believe you were involved in this investigation.
Using Suspected_sock_puppets/Matthew as a precedent, I've courtesy blanked this page Suspected_sock_puppets/Dbromageas it obvious that these claims have been discreditied by the Arbitration Committee.
If anyone wants to examine these discredited allegations then they are welcome to examine the history of that page.
User:Dbromage seems to have made a worthwile contribution here Special:Contributions/Dbromage. Sadly,this editor has departed Wikipedia since these claims were made. I hope by blanking the page the community sends a signal that he is welcome to return.
I'm like to disclose, I might have a conflict of interest here, being a Railpage forum user, although I have no connection with its operation. My concern is that this sockpuppet investigation has filtered into Google. Using a keyword search "Dbromage" reveals the discredited allegations.
I attemped to do some research in the matter and I must admit I'm no expert, but it seems CSD#G7 does not apply.
Do you have any opinions how this sockpuppet investigation and User_talk:Tezza1can be permanently removed? Logic Fuzzy (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Issue
There seems to be an issue with me closing AFD's. I've been told that I closed them when there was no clear cut issue. I will give on one of them, as you can see on my talk page. However, the rest that I closed were reclosed or open then closed with the same outcome. I forgot, actually I was wrong, in the fact that I forgot the last step by adding the template to the talk page, again, see my page. I was told not to close any more AFD's. Can you provide your insight on this? Thanks, and sorry if I disappointed you. That is/was not my intention. Dustitalk to me 16:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I watch this page, so if I could just interject. With an AfD like [92], when you closed as Keep there were 2 Keep votes, a Delete vote, and a Comment. Since it was Nom'd by an IP, that generally makes it a closer call since you don't have a solid Nom vote, that means it was 2 votes to 1, which it why it was controversial. I would've suggested relisting it for more comment as opposed to even an Admin closing it. MBisanz talk 17:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- True, but look at the way it was closed this time, 4:4.....Dustitalk to me 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- It closed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neofuturism as Delete, the opposite of what you closed at... MBisanz talk 17:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Dusti: This serves more as an example of how many AFD's are not closed by "delete" / "keep". The majority of the editors felt it was either a hoax or not notable. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- It closed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neofuturism as Delete, the opposite of what you closed at... MBisanz talk 17:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- True, but unless I'm wrong, wasn't it/isn't it at no consensus? I feel it was closed prematurely. Dustitalk to me 17:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but you also closed it even MORE prematurely. The outcome was delete for the reason the closing admin gave. At the end, its left up to the rationale of the closing admin. I would have done the same thing, as the argument lead to the right decision. If and when the topic becomes notable, and is verified, it will be included once again on wikipedia. Even deletes can be overturned, and no one is perfect, so keep all this in mind. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- True, true. Dustitalk to me 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but you also closed it even MORE prematurely. The outcome was delete for the reason the closing admin gave. At the end, its left up to the rationale of the closing admin. I would have done the same thing, as the argument lead to the right decision. If and when the topic becomes notable, and is verified, it will be included once again on wikipedia. Even deletes can be overturned, and no one is perfect, so keep all this in mind. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- True, but unless I'm wrong, wasn't it/isn't it at no consensus? I feel it was closed prematurely. Dustitalk to me 17:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 | Dusti is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon. Short intermediate edits may happen, but I just need to destress and clear my head. I'll be back soon though -- don't worry!!!! |
Dusti--while you're still learning AFDs, only close the obvious ones. Study the closing of the close ones, and steadily work toward them. See you when you get back. I'll be gone 21-29 Mar too. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Since you were the admin involved in the SSP above, I figured I'd drop a line here. I've filed a new case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Colective follower, which (to me) looks pretty similar. Since the old case was archived and closed, I didn't know what else to do. Yngvarr (c) 23:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Second case? Anyway, was going to file a RFCU for User:The Legend of G (which sounds suspect as do most now with G or Greg in them) but found out before submitting that an autoblock was in place for him but would like to find more sleeper accounts as I know he'll have a few. Best suggestions for this without fishing? treelo talk 00:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You referred to a "link above", but there was none. I fixed it. :) Corvus cornixtalk 23:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Curious
You blocked Colective follower as a sock of Greg Jungwirth. The odd thing is, he added nonsense to the talk page of The Legend of G. The Legend of G hadn't edited in two days. Colective follower made one more edit and then stopped. Eight minutes later The Legend of G arrives and claims Colective was a sock of Greg. Colective gets blocked....and then Legend gets caught in the autoblock. Odd, no? IrishGuy talk 00:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikibreak, not so short after all
I woke up this morning feeling great, and I had to come back. I'm just going to slow down for now. Anything in particular you want me to do, or not do :) Dustitalk to me 18:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I will close obvious AFD's. Dustitalk to me 18:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As per the archived WP:AN/I discussion here, I have initiated WP:DR in the respective talk pages as follows:
- Talk:Prostitution in South Korea#WP:NPOV violations / "Prostitution for tourists during the 1970s"
- Talk:Gimbap#The origin of Gimbap
If it's not too much trouble, please continue to monitor discussions there. Thank you.--Endroit (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
|== Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance == This Arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above. PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. PHG is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole. PHG is also reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion. When one editor finds themselves at odds with most other editors on a topic, it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument. After suggestions have been properly considered and debated, and possible options considered, if a consensus is clear, the collegial and cooperative thing to do is to acknowledge the consensus, and move on to other debates.
PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in other ways, including by suggesting topics for articles, making well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, and continuing to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons.
For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 01:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
user:castratingkittens
I haven't a clue as to who that guy was, but I saw him go past as a person who's been indef-blocked, a process I'm interested in. Maybe he was a troll. At worst he should have been told his name would create too much controversy. But nobody knew why he chose it, and nobody gave him a chance to explain himself. The other part of the interest for me, is that (as a matter of fact) I run a cat/kitten rescue operation and we've castrated many a kitten, and thus saved a lot of lives (I can explain if you're really interested). If you think this is advocation of violence, it only shows you need education in vetrinary medicine. That said, I don't have all the info here, either, but at least I understand that I don't. Please take this as a mild suggestion to follow these things up better until you're sure you haven't biten yet another newbie. SBHarris 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Cowboycaleb
Just to let you know that despite a few months away, Cowboycaleb's vendetta against me still hasn't stopped, and has thus today left a post on my talkpage, basically saying no one can stop him. Can you put my talkpage on your watchlist in case he strikes again when I'm offline? Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you
 |
Hi Rlevse! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1). |
RfC on collaboration templates
I have raised an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Collaborations#RfC: Should the collaboration template appear on the article page --Matilda talk 00:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Order of the Arrow
You were recently involved in discussions on the article Order of the Arrow. Some of the issues brought up then were not resolved. If you are interested, please participate in the continued discussion at Talk:Order of the Arrow#Safeguarded material. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunatley, its that time
You asked for me to check in, and well, here I am. I feel that I have made some progress (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Autocracy for an example}}. Hit me with the good/bad/ugly. Dustitalk to me 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Please review if I am being unacceptable
I know this is weird to ask but, I'd like your opinion on my comments on this talk page. You need not weigh-in on the subject but I would like another editors view of my comments and their appropriateness. I think I may have offended another editor and that was never my intention, however I saw the situation in a certain light and that's what I spoke about. Please let me know what you think (either here, or my talk page, or the article talk page... I'm not trying to hide anything). Padillah (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Flickr
Added as a contact. Rudget. 13:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Green light
It was just a polite request and I just got tired of waiting. Wikipedia encourages you to be bold and fix whatever you think should be fixed. If you can fix it further just go ahead. Any page open for edit does not require any green light. ~RayLast «Talk!» 01:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- The difference here is you asked for a green light at 23:15 and started at 00:43 and yet claim you "got tired of waiting". Being bold is one thing but asking for a green light and waiting less than 30 minutes is bad taste and very impatient. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I "claim" I got tired? Like I'm lying? I assure you I got tired of waiting and refreshing pages for a response for 1.5 hours. The project seems so abandoned that I don't know if I could have just kept on waiting for a week. Then I just decided to edit, since I had the right anyway. Bad taste and patience are both relative. You sure do seem to have abundance in both good taste and patience. I wouldn't make such a big deal about it even if I was bored. ~RayLast «Talk!» 01:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- The difference here is you asked for a green light at 23:15 and started at 00:43 and yet claim you "got tired of waiting". Being bold is one thing but asking for a green light and waiting less than 30 minutes is bad taste and very impatient. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Have we met
Your username sounds familiar but I do not recall us ever working together. -- Cat chi? 14:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wait a minute, why did you revert this? What is your problem? -- Cat chi? 15:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
TM
Hey there. You dealt with the tom.mevlie sockpuppetry case, as I understand. He came back recently as DangerTM, and was blocked. Now, in the WikiProject Novels, someone new has shown up with an account less than a day old, and I have a feeling it may just be that guy AGAIN. WilliamMThompson is the fellow I suspect, and is painting himself as a total newbie to Wikipedia. He's also put in an appearance on the General Forum for that project, agreeing with DangerTM and kinda calling someone a homophobe. I'm sure you can see it for yourself. It's a little suspicious that some new guy would appear on the Novels project almost immediately after Danger got blocked, agreeing with him, and saying inflammatory things. Howa0082 (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I guess I want to say that I wasn't agreeing with Danger flat out, there were some points that we may have shared similar view points. But he was saying notability was everything, and I hope I am saying that it is not.WilliamMThompson (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Was I innocent? I am innocent, present my friends. What are the odds that I would show up on this page? I followed the breadcrumbs. It is amazing how far out in the woods I was left. I am going to stop using that particular Hansel and Gretle metaphor, because at this point it is far too tempting to mix it up with Alice and the rabbit hole, and I do hate mixing metaphors. We should all get along, we should all be friends, I didn't come online soley to make friends, but it wouldn't be unwelcome. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I love it when opinions collide in the form of healthy debate. But maybe over stepping the mark for a brand new user really is going a tad too far, don't you think?WilliamMThompson (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey ... I was looking on flickr for a photo of Percy Harvin and I saw this one. Do you have anything zoomed in on him that shows his face? --B (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Igor
You may be interested in Igor. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Artisol 2345's sockpuppet
Anyways Are you sure, how you found out this was Artisol2345's sockpuppet. Did you check his e-mail address, what about if that account could be his brother or sister, or his father haveyou thought about that? Anony IPs 75 xxxabc keep driving me around bugging everyone about people accusing him about sockpuppet. Most people have roommates, and same computer can be share with more than one person. Like mom and dads can also be contrib on Wiki, and their 3 sons might have their own account while parents has their own account. That way is not a sockpuppet. A sockpuppet is one person with like 4 or 5 or more account. Lets pretend one person has account of Route 5, then Orange-County 5, or 405 guy, or LAX 505. Thats sockpuppet, they are not real users just examples.--Freewayguy (Webmail) 18:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Dawn Wells
I added a section to Dawn Wells that reads as follows:
- In 1998, fellow Islander Bob Denver was arrested for having a parcel of marijuana delivered to his home. He originally said that the parcel had come from Dawn Wells, but later refused to name her in court, and testified that "some crazy fan must have sent it".[1]
- Wells was arrested on October 18 2007, after a Teton County sheriff's deputy pulled her over after observing her swerve across the fog lines and center lines of State Highway 33 and repeatedly accelerating and slowing down. The officer noted the strong odor of "burning marijuana", and a search of her vehicle produced several partially consumed marijuana cigarettes and several containers of marijuana. Wells was taken into custody after failing a field sobriety test.[2] According to the Associated Press, she was sentenced on February 29 2008 to five days in jail, fined $410.50, and placed on six months' probation after pleading guilty to one count of reckless driving.[3]
The section is properly referenced and relevant. Several people including War, FCYTravis, and Cleo123, do not want this included because it is not seen as "positive". This is a POV view.
I request that you ask these people to cease reverting this section which is relevant and factual. It is based on news accounts and court records. Proxy User (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- It should be noted that I posted a notice on the Biography Project's Bulletin Board some time back regarding this user's edits to the Dawn Wells article. [93] Administrator, FCYTravis was kind enough to respond to my posting and has reverted Proxy User's version. Unfortunately, Proxy User just doesn't seem to understand why his revisions violate WP:BLP no matter how many people try to explain it to him. He continues to edit war on the article and has now posted a "warning" on administrator, FCYTravis' page.[94] If you are familiar with this editor, perhaps you can explain things to him in a way that he'll understand. Cleo123 (talk) 03:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I asked for Mediation, bud Admin FCYTravis, who is a party to the disagreement rejected it. This is improper. A party to the issue should not be able to reject the Mediation request. Proxy User (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- ^ Dana Stevens (September 6 2005). "Gilligan's Dreams". slate.msn.com.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ http://www.aolcdn.com/tmz_documents/0311_dawn_wells_wm.pdf Jail Booking Detail], Teton County Sheriff, October 18, 2007
- ^ Associated Press, via the Seattle Post-Intelligencer website (March 11 2008). "Gilligan's Island good girl caught with pot". Retrieved 2008-03-11.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)