User talk:Rlevse/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Me day

Though I know not why (or even how) it came to pass that I was selected as a "Day" recipient, thank you. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC closed

Hi, in your ARBCOM hat - I was looking for some feedback on on the way forward as the RFC discussion has closed concerning what we are to do with the low results returned in the checkuser and oversight elections "Immediate steps" poll by FT2 and is in need of assessment and the next step, whatever that is to be, regards.Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's not much of a consensus there for anything is there. Considering there is a dire need for more CUs and OSs, that is indeed a conundrum. We're discussing it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK prep 2

Hi, not sure if you've started trying to compile Prep2, but I just uploaded a set there. Sorry, I think I forgot to save the Inuse template since I don't see it in the history. –Grondemar 16:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No biggie, I'll put mine in extra. Tks for letting me know. I am pulling a set now. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

True/Slant

Hello. I'm a bit concerned about the True/Slant matter, and the way it was handled. First, for reasons articulated there by a number of editors, I don't think there was any legitimate BLP issue. It is not enough for one to claim there is such an issue; that must in fact be the case. What was argued -- that the hook had no BLP issue, and most of the article underlying the hook had no BLP issue, but one sentence in the article did have a BLP issue, because that sentence said a person held a sign with a spelling error, is not IMHO a legitimate BLP issue. The BLP argument was used by the same editor in an AFD discussion. He called it a "clear BLP violation". Not one editor agreed with him. The article was kept a "Keep". Here, it is even more attenuated -- as the phrase is not even in the hook (though I obviously feel were it in the hook, the answer would be the same). The hook was approved. Gato said no decision can be made, as conversation is ongoing. Then, with most of the editors disagreeing with Gato, you come in to the still-ongoing-discussion and close it as disapproved.

If Gato was wrong that the editor could not approve the discussion, it should have been approved. If he was right, because the conversation was ongoing, then you also should not be able to close the discussion as a disapprove.

IMHO. Respectfully. I would ask, for the foregoing reasons, that you restore the discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP standards for DYK, since they appear on the main page, are higher than for article space. I'm not about to put that on the main page with all the ongoing concerns. That is alone is enough to disapprove it, but in addition nor will I keep it there on hold for as long as a BLPN takes. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

"All the ongoing concerns" have been demonstrated to be just so many words IMHO, and in the opinion of most of the editors in that discussion. The editor who posed the same concerns at AfD was informed by lack of any agreement that his assertions of "clear BLP violation" were just words -- not the case. I see the same here; even worse, as the hook itself lacks any such claimed violation whatsoever. The standards applied at DYK (which you refer to) are reflected at the DYKs that I pointed to. They reflect that the higher standard you refer to allows for hooks describing people as 10 most wanted fugitives and as be-headers (with pictures to boot), and these hooks are among those we boast about as having the most hits. This clearly falls well within that standard. I don't think its even close. I'm concerned as well with the double standard -- the approver cannot close the discussion because it is ongoing, but the non-approver can? I'm struggling to appreciate how that can be. Thanks for your thoughts.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not changing my mind. Recall the Arabian DYK issue. That's two BLP-related DYK noms with significant concerns you've been at the center at in as many weeks. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes. With the same Gato -- whose edits are discussed there--at the center of it. And the other hook was one that was added to a queue, but then you deleted from a queue--so you were also at the center of it.

I fail to see how I am being treated consistently, since you promote for DYK an article that says "Montoya had previously been investigated in July 2006 for sexual assault that involved vaginal penetration on Nevaeh, then 23 months old", and that's just fine. But when I have an article that mentions a spelling error, its not. I'm slightly troubled that there may be a double standard. And that you've again not indicated why you can close a conversation in mid-discussion, but an approver cannot. I would like to appeal this matter -- what would you suggest is the appropriate manner? I would like it to be reviewed by people other than those who have given us and Gato awards -- third parties who are more arms'length -- as I think we can then get the fairest result. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That was not the hook used in Neveah's article, you're putting the problematic bit right in the hook. Spelling has nothing to do with it. The Arabian thread is where I learned how much the DYK BLP standard is higher is. I explained why I closed this particular nom. If you want more review, go ahead, but again, I'm not changing my mind. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• No. Respectfully--you are absolutely wrong. You apparently closed the True/Slant discussion without reading the hooks. --Epeefleche (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally untrue. Let me elaborate on one thing I said above about ongoing BLPN, I'm not putting an article with a BLPN up as DYK hook, not even with that alt hook. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel we must be speaking different languages. You, above, said "That was not the hook used in Neveah's article, you're putting the problematic bit right in the hook." Focusing on the True/Slant hook(s), for the moment, there was no BLP problem with the hook(s). One was only even claimed (without support at the AfD, and without consensus support at the DyK discussion) as to the underlying article. But that's certainly not the standard applied at DyK, as is evident in not only your DYK where the underlying article speaks of alleged vaginal penetration of a 23-month-old, but in any number of others which (as yours) speak of things perhaps slightly more unspeakable than a spelling error. Nor have you stated what the standard is, or where it is written.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Move along. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what that means. I had thought we had a misunderstanding, and sought to clarify. You seem to be indicating that you are not interested in responding to my request for clarification. I had thought that under wp:admin, it was the least I could expect, especially as you seemed to confuse whether the True/Slant hook(s) had a putative BLP violation. I gather you are not inclined to do so.

Just so I'm clear, my concerns at this point are as follows.

1. I don't think there is a legitimate BLP concern, for the reasons stated by me and others, both in the two DYK threads and at the AfD.
2. I don't feel there is any "higher level DYK" concern in these two hooks, as evidenced by a) the level of DYK concern about underlying articles evidenced elsewhere, b) the level of DYK concern about hooks that were far more negative about living persons, c) the fact that nobody has indicated why a spelling error in an underlying article violates such higher standard, and d) the fact that nobody has articulated precisely what that higher standard is, and where it is reflected.
3. I'm concerned that Gato is applying a higher standard to my DYKs than is being applied to others.
4. I'm concerned that you are doing the same.
5. I'm concerned that after my first DYK was put in queue by the editor who pulled it out, you reverted him, and now after an approving editor is reverted on the basis that conversation is ongoing, you disapprove the hook even though conversation is ongoing.
6. You appear disinclined to respond to my efforts to learn where that standard is stated, what the standard is, and what I am missing in the comparison between the True/Slant hook and your hook -- which had a much more BLP-sensitive accusation in it.

Obviously, these issues are more than DYK or BLP by themselves can handle, and I think it best not to separate them. I would like to proceed in a manner that is agreeable with you, if possible. To keep the discussion centralized, do you think that AN/I would be the best place to go? Or RFC? Not necessarily as the final level, but as the next level?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've explained myself, you're not listening we're going in circles. Move along. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'll move along, as you suggest. But just to be clear -- I've articulated above just where you have failed to explain yourself. IMHO, of course. I won't repeat the items, as they are delineated clearly enough above, and I don't wish to trouble you. I gather you have no view as to the best reviewing forum.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User groups

Hi. Could you recover Brandmeister's user rights for this alternate account of mine? CU may endorse IP match. Twilightchill t 19:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. CU confirmed. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

See this for the record — Rlevse • Talk • 19:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Prep Extra

Sorry if I cut you off in editing that template. I forgot to finish it and came back to fill in the remaining spots not really knowing that you were already on it :)--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 22:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's okay. No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ;)--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 22:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Lambert for Did you know?

You seem currently busy editing. I updated the phrasing of the article about Daniel Lambert to "prison warder ('gaol keeper')", to avoid ambiguity.

This change should be done on the QUEUE for DYK, imho, but I don't know how.

(I thought Lambert was a association football (soccer) goal-keeper, which is exactly what Wikipedia suggests if you search for gaol keeper!)

Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And I've undone it; please don't make daft edits like this. A gaol keeper has nothing in common with either a prison warder or a "corrections officer" (whatever that is) other than both working in custodies of some kind. – iridescent 23:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear this guy ran a prison. Use whatever term for that you guys like. FYI, "corrections officer" is a modern day US term for someone that keeps an eye on prison/jail inmates, which Lambert does seem to have done. I've fixed the queue hook so that gaol no longer goes to a redirect but directly to prison. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

A gaol keeper owned a gaol (not a prison, which in this period is a hard-labour institution rather than a town lock-up) and took a per-prisoner fee from the local town or sheriff. All an eighteenth-century gaol keeper has is common with a modern-day prison warder is that they both worked in a place where people are locked up. – iridescent 23:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Then I'd say gaol needs its own article or a section in prison — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a problematic one; "gaol" today is the British-English word for "prison" (the labour-camps no longer exist), and that's the sense in which most people will be searching for it. We do have an (very unsatisfactorily-titled) article on the old-style gaols and bridewells at Village lock-up, but that needs a huge cleanup; it can't be moved to "Lock-up" because "lock-up" itself also has a new meaning in the present-day English system (the cells in police stations where recently-arrested people are kept).

The problem is that the only people regularly working on 18th-19th century England are myself and Slim, and we both have a limited amount of time on our hands; plus, policing and prisons are one field where Wikipedia's coverage is massively skewed towards the US (that prison warden article doesn't even mention the rest of the world), so the "obvious" links often point to wildly misleading things on US posts or buildings with the same name but completely different functions. – iridescent 00:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that is problematic. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What's really ironic is that the US split from Britain before the 1839 restructuring of the British penal system, and thus preserved the gaol/prison distinction; Prison includes a long section on Jails in the United States which explains the difference perfectly, but obviously can't be used here because it's not in the US... – iridescent 00:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK : Recaredo Santos Tornero

Hi. I recall having a DYK in the past but I don't remember the process. My DYK for Recaredo Santos Tornero has already been verified. How much does it takes to be taken to the queue? Thanks in advance! :-) Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 15:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to focus the older noms as most people focus on the newer ones. I do so as those people have been waiting longer to see theirs on the main page. Yours was only posted and verified yesterday and there's still stuff waiting from late June. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK then. :) --Diego Grez ^{let's talk} 16:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK request

The hook in the prep area for Copano, Texas also links Copano Bay. I recently rewrote the Copano Bay article, which now qualifies for DYK because it was over a 5x expansion discounting the copyright violation and unreferenced nonsense previously on the page. Could it be possible to bold the link to Copano Bay on the hook to create a double nomination hook?--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on prose size that's not even a 3x expansion (2078 to 5466). And I'm not seeing the copyright thing you mention, but I'm not totally awake yet ;-) Maybe ask Gatoclass or Materialscientist about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It was a complete rewrite, so it basically went from 0 to 5466.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Now I see it. Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

• News and notes: WMF expansion, community hires, award for MediaWiki, admin recall

• In the news: Accidentally anonymized donation, democratized learning and more

• Wikimania preview: Gearing up for Wikimania in Gdańsk

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Children's Literature

• Features and admins: This week's highlights

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Happy Me Day

Many thanks for this, Rlevse. I've been having a stressful time lately for reasons unconnected with Wikipedia, and your award really made me smile. I am awed to have been chosen. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and you're welcome. Glad it helped in other ways too. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Email 7-8-10

Hello,

I just corresponded with you via email. I would like to go ahead with your suggestion. Please email me if you have any questions.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piccol13 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record that was a random rename request. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by As8q34wipo (talk • contribs) 01:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

not to be a pest but i still see there are a couple lines that read "undid revision by piccol 13" is this changeable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piccol13 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

ok, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piccol13 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

User stats, editors and outing prevention

Hello

I have a few questions. Are there stat code I could put on my talk page that would be similar to yours? I also like your user page, and I suspect that it was not entirely written in Wikipedia's online edit page as it is so complex. Did you use an external editor? I've always had trouble finding a resource to learn Wikicode. Is there any external WYSIWYG editor for editing wiki with a GUI interface? I've read the Wiki page about external editors and it doesn't seem like there are any good alternatives to the online editor or Microsoft Word. My last question about outing. I've changed my user name a while ago after I was outed. I since changed my user name, but I've noticed that some of my edits in the talk/discussion pages still have my RL name. So I had broken rule 1, 5, and 7. Should I just make a new account? Can I transfer edits and still be a verified user or whatnot?

Thanks Hmm... (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

For the stats, ask User:Rjanag. For the wikicode, ask User:Jack Merridew. I did not write my own user page code. Renaming only changes contribs and user pages. It won't change edit summaries, your name in talk page text, etc. You could make a new account as long as you cease using all prior accounts, including Hmm... . I can rename you but that will move Hmm... edits to the new name. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I already renamed, but my talk pages still use the old RL name. I guess I can just start a new account as I have <200 edits. I would just lose all my history of edits then. :( Hmm... (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I will be setting up a new account. Is there anything I should do at this point with this account? Hmm... (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop using it and any other prior accounts, don't use them again. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Re: DYK nomination of Roman Imperial Church

I responded on the nomination page. Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Isabella Brant (drawing)

Thanks for the DYK alert on my talk page, much appreciated. I had a look at the stats hoping that it would have shot up on 9th July. However there are no stats after 7 July. I doubt it is the actual application itself as the data for all other wiki pages seem to be affected. It is a shame as I wanted to know what the traffic was like. Is the raw data retrievable or can it be reinstated? cheers! Noelypole (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it takes a day or two for the stats to show up so keep checking. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have, and now today (11th July), the link to the stats page is broken. Noelypole (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#View_tool — Rlevse • Talk • 20:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

hmmm.. interesting. Thanks for the link, much appreciated! Noelypole (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Urgent DYK nomination

Hi Rlevse, I draw your attention to this 11 July 2010 nomination, which I have hosted under the special occasion holding area. I believe both articles are appropriate for nomination, and I hope to have the hook published on the Main Page during 11 July, which also is the FIFA World Cup 2010 Final day. In fact, it would be excellent to place the hook in the right queue so that it comes out during the time period of the Final match which begins at UTC 20:30. I sincerely hope you find this request appropriate and relevant. Thanks! AngChenrui (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Keep an eye on the noms page in case there are issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the problem now is: we can slot the DYK into either of the two queues, but both have its pros and cons. Putting it in Queue 3 would mean the DYK receiving widespread viewing before the game starts. If its in Queue 4, the DYK will be published half an hour before the game starts, and carry on being on the Main Page during the game itself and finally being removed three and a half hours after the game has ended (the game would last around 2 hours). I've also pasted this onto the DYK template discussion page; don't like split discussions. Thanks :D AngChenrui (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Given how many will watch the game, let's make it 3. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay I'll agree. AngChenrui (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, just asking if the nomination will be moved to Queue 3 in time. Queue 3 is already occupied with a set of nominations different from the one we are proposing. Will you push the entire queue back one step back? Or shift our nomination(s) directly to the Main Page from the Prep area ? Thanks! AngChenrui (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved a couple queues. The notice was at WT:DYK for awhile and no one commented so I guess no one watching it objected, so I just made the moves. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul the Octopus image

Hi, Rlevse. I have made a composite image from the two free images available on Commons. I added it to the article, but of course I am not sure, if other editors will like it. Yet, if it is to stay, maybe it should be changed for DYK too. Here's the image I made File:Paul the Octopus 1.jpg Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, forget it. Somebody changed the image back :( although I still believe the one I have done is much more entertaining. Sorry I bothered you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Historic Trails Award

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

link

Hi, could you link me to the relevant policy or guideline thanks

"If you want a policy change on inactive admins or such, propose a policy change"

Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been looking around but as yet been unable to find this policy, if you have a link I would appreciate that, thanks. Is it a Wikipedia:Policy ? Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• So, its not policy, ok , so have you got some diffs that show it is long term practice that users with no edit history for lengthy periods like three years should be automatically resopped. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Choose any of many threads in the history at BN. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

So you say it is a regular occasion that inactive returnee accounts after three years are automatically re-sopped, is it common then that accounts return after three years and ask for administrative powers? Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

That's correct admins who turned in their bit "not under a cloud" get it back, though the three year part is longer than we usually see. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Progress?

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but I find it hard to wrap my brain around how anyone would characterize this,this, this and this as evidencing progress. More like the SOS, seriously crossing the lines drawn by the TM ArbCom decision. I rather expect that ArbCom will be entertaining yet another protracted and unpleasant proceeding on this walled garden within an obscenely short time. See you then. Cheers! Fladrif (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Optimists say the glass is half full; pessimists say the glass is half empty. Maybe the glass is just too big. Fladrif (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Pre-GA GA?

Rlevse, I'm about half-thinking about trying to take that Sheila Varian article to GA. I don't really think it could ever go clear to FA, but I'd like to stick a toe into trying a GA solo again (been quite a while). Can you give the current version there a look and let me know (on the talk page there) where improvements may be needed, especially as it is a BLP? As you are not a horse person, you will probably have enough neutrality to see if there are problems. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 06:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Montanabw, I was viewing another of Rlevse's user talk threads when I saw yours. Just need your comment on this matter. I was new page patrolling and I saw this article Allied Powers (horse). Felt it would serve as an excellent DYK for the April Fool's DYKs, so I listed it as a nomination (see here). Trouble is, it definitely needs clean-up and might not even meet the notability guidelines. I haven't got any expertise on horse racing/horse rearing, so I thought you might be better advised on this. Any advice/suggestions? Thanks a lot. AngChenrui (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Pop a note to people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing or to users Ealdgyth or Cgoodwin. They have some sense of the racehorse articles. There are zillions of these racehorse articles (my favorite: Potoooooooo) and a potential minefield to wade in on notability. Montanabw^(talk) 06:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

For the amazing (and backbreaking) work you've done, have a treat!

		Cookies!
		AngChenrui has given you many cookies. Yummy! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hope I didn't, er, tempt you beyond mental arousal. Cheers! AngChenrui (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

YUM YUM, thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 14:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, Rlevse. Can you help, please? Can you explain me how to create user committed identity, and is there any requirements for Today’s Wikipedians? Thanks in advance! All best! --Tadija^speaks 14:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

See User:Rlevse/Tools#User_committed_identity, as for Today's Wikipedian, I have my own guidelines but don't publish them. If you want to nominate yourself or someone else, post here or email me. I usually have a long list of deserving people. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, link is off, so dont know what next, and thanks for today's wikipedian... --Tadija^speaks 19:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect CU

You recently carried out a CU on SpongerJack and linked the account directly to MidnightBlueMan and an ip. You are wrong. The evidence you presented is incorrect. While MidnightBlueMan may link to the ip by checkuser, my ip certainly doesn't. In fact only the first element of it is common. Did you misread 29 for 23? Anyway, you have placed a Confirmed link when no such link is present. I am not MidnightBlueMan, so check your checkuser and please explain how you come to get a confirmed link. I would then appreciate it if you would make good the error. Further, why did you disclose an underlying ip? I though it contravened privacy to do so? This is a one-off throwaway account. I am FootballPhil/SpongerJack. COAOneHundredTwo (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the IP posted as it tied to MBM IP editing not you but there is evidence linking the two of you also. Socks are often linked onwiki when they edit this way. As for you, you just admitted you are socking on two counts. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Lucas Maius

I saw that you moved this entry into the DYK prep area. I think there may have been a misunderstanding here. I proposed an ALT hook (which you used), and provided a long explanation for why I liked the ALT hook better, but I did not verify the entry. I did not think it would be appropriate for me to verify the hook that I myself proposed. Did you verify the entry yourself? It did not seem to have been marked as verified at the time you moved it to prep. Nsk92 (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I misread it, I've restored it with a comment. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've replied to your comment there. Nsk92 (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse, could you please take another look at this nomination thread? There was further discussion and several new ALT hooks have been suggested (by me). The original nominator likes two of them (ALT2 and ALT4). I feel that, for the sake of protocol, someone other than myself should verify one or both of these hooks (or raise further issues if there are still any). Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 12:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Catherine Pollard (Scouting)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Nightwish discography

Hi, can you vote here please? Thank you. DreamNight (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Next steps

Hi. Concerning this edit, I would like your advice on the next steps. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 15:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Would you please consider adding a timeline to what you wrote in this edit? Thanks!

Kim's BLP edits evidence link

I'm sorry, but I can't find where the link was supposed to go. Perhaps to John Barber's evidence here? Cla68 (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Pifeedback

Pifeedback

Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

An OTRS image

Howdy. Could you please take a look at the following link and share your thoughts? [1] Thank you.--Rockfang (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

• UK COI edits: British politicians accused of WP cover-ups

• News and notes: Board changes, Wikimania, Public Policy Initiative

• In the news: Foundation plans, David Barton, dangerous occasional glitches

• Discussion report: Article ownership, WikiProjects vs. Manual of Style, Unverifiable village

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Apple Inc.

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Dreadstar

Yes, I saw that. More admin burnout. He went out with a bang.[2] I sent him an email urging him to return when he feels like it, and thanking him for his work.   Will Beback  talk  23:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, too bad. I didn't see that one. It was nice of you to contact him. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Before he left he deleted his user talk page, which I understand is not normally done, even in WP:RTV situations. WP:DELTALK.   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You didn't see it coming? It was obvious and inevitable. Either he was going to quit or he was going to so completely cross the line that he was going to get his admin tools revoked. This has been painfully obvious for months, and judging from the archives, for years. This kerfluffle is a pretext as best for the noisy and over-dramatic resignation.Fladrif (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's not celebrate the departure of a contributor. I am concerned about the out-of-process talk page deletion. I suppose the only way to address that is to go to WP:DRV.   Will Beback  talk  01:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, really Fladrif, that's in bad taste even for you. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have left Fladrif a message saying pretty much the same thing on their talkpage. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks NH. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, Beback, my archives aren't deleted, I moved them all right here: User_talk:Dreadstar/Archives, in my "strange" archiving scheme(as you so kindly referred to them). If that's not within the bounds of WP rules, then my all means move them where you think think they belong. Dreadstar ☥ 03:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything you need to redact? If not, the talk page history should be restored. The policy is clear. Also, please stop leaving personal attacks.   Will Beback  talk  03:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I wanted redacted is one of your pages, but apparently that ain't happening. As for my lovely archives, nah, they're still there:

Talk page history is:

1. User talk:Dreadstar/Edit history|Dreadstar talk page history Dec 2005 to Jul 2008
2. User talk:Dreadstar/EH Archive 2|Dreadstar talk page history Aug 2009 to Dec 2009
3. User talk:Dreadstar/EH Archive 3|Dreadstar talk page history Dec 2009 to

The archives are here:

• Archive 1 (December 2005 to November 2006)
• Archive 2 (December 2006 to June 2007)
• Archive 3 (July 2007 to September 2007)
• Archive 4 (October 2007)
• Archive 5 (November 2007 to December 2007)
• Archive 6 (January 2008 to March 31 2008)
• Archive 7 (April 1 2008 to August 31 2008)
• Archive 8 (September 2008 to December 31 2008)
• Archive 9 (January 1 2009 to December 31 2009)
• Archive 10 (January 1 2010 to - )

Some editors move entire talk pages, others copy and pate all the time, I happen to do both- makes it easier for me to find things. But if anyone want's them moved or combined somewhere else, then have an uninvolved admin ask me, not WBB. Dreadstar ☥ 04:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not the usual way of archiving which is why I called it "strange". However it's not forbidden. Thanks for restoring the restoring the talk page.   Will Beback  talk  05:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't 'restore' any talk page, they've always been visible. Just 'strangely' moved. Dreadstar ☥

I've lost track, but I'll take your word for it. ;)   Will Beback  talk  10:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh never mind - I unretire

• Well, I guess I'll have to un-retire, since Will so kindly redacted the item that so vexed me. Thank you Will, guess I should have pointed that out earler. The rest of it doesn't bother me. Thanks again.

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		For helping me understand the core of the flame, and convincing me to put it right out. Dreadstar ☥ 21:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

-) — Rlevse • Talk • 21

10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

DYKs

Hey, sorry I haven't been up for improving your DYKs lately. I only make small edits for the most part nowadays, but maybe I'll be more active in the fall. How have you been? Juliancolton (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That's okay. I'm fine. How are you? I always need your help. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Your opposition

Hi,

how come you are opposing my request for lifting of my topic ban? I've posed the question on the amendment page here, so if you could post a rationale there, that would be helpful. --Martin (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I second this request. Presenting your reasoning would be respectful to editors on both sides of the issue. Novickas (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Mail

You've got mail :) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Motion Passage

Hi again. In this edit, you wrote "The six months starts from the day this motion passes". Did you mean that literally, or did you mean what has effectively become "The six months starts from the day the user's talk page is notified of this motion by a clerk" or perhaps "The six months starts from the day this motion is marked passed by a clerk" due to undocumented "long-standing practice"[3]? The delay between when the last vote needed for passage was made 15:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC) and when JBsupreme was officially notified of that fact 19:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC) was 7 days 3 hours 41 minutes, far longer than I expected. For additional background, please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Arbitration_motion_regarding_Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FTothwolf. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 05:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a long time. It should be day the motion passes, but if you want I'll bring this particular issue up with the rest of the committee. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Normally this would be the same day as the clerks notify upon closing the case/motion passing but here there was a big goof, so go with the day he was notified. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great, as I was rebuffed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive65#JBsupreme and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 11#Arbitration_motion_regarding_Wikipedia:Arbitration.2FRequests.2FCase.2FTothwolf partially due to the timing. Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 02:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust diffs

Virtually all of User:Thegoodlocust's editing over the past month or two has been to the Arbitration case on climate change. If you'd like, I can go through and present a few diffs which I think highlight the fact that he's continuing to approach this as a partisan political fight or a debating society (neither of which are especially useful), but you may well have already seen them since they would be drawn from the ArbCom case pages anyhow.

My ban proposal was based mostly on the long-term record of negativity, the long-term lack of positive contributions, and the lack of any discernible change in approach. This is an editor who tends to gravitate to the most contentious and politicized topics we've got, and then inevitably throws gasoline on them with an abrasive, partisan approach. I am a bit curious to see what he'll do now that he's been temporarily topic-banned from climate change - it might provide a good opportunity to see if he can do some constructive editing - but so far he's just moved on to bang the same drums in the ArbCom case, so it's not really possible to draw any positive conclusions. MastCell ^Talk 20:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If could hilit some recent diffs, even in the arb case, showing this continued trend, that would help. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem - if you can give me till this time tomorrow, either I will post more diffs or I'll get off the pot. :) MastCell ^Talk 04:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Tomorrow is okay. We're planning to post the PD by Sunday. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, good luck. :) MastCell ^Talk 23:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: thanks to an unforeseen (positive) development, I won't be able to get to this tonight, but will post additional diffs Friday afternoon. If that's too late for consideration, I understand. Thanks for your patience. MastCell ^Talk 03:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That should still be okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

Nice to see your article on William Hanna on the Main Page. Congratulations, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Tks! — Rlevse • Talk • 22:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hockey stick

By the way, the Hockey Stick Illusion book is a reliable source [4] and attempts to describe is as fringe don't hold much water [5], IMO. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As requested, evidence that the book promotes fringe views. Note that the graph on the cover of the book is supposedly an "illusion" as claimed by the book, and while the graph supports AGW theory, the book opposes it and claims that mainstream science is fraudulent.

From one of the few reviews in the article on The Hockey Stick Illusion, "It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame.", "Andrew Montford’s book [is] built around the long, lonely struggle of one man— Stephen McIntyre...", "As a long-time champion of science, I find the reaction of the scientific establishment more shocking than anything. The reaction was not even a shrug: it was shut-eyed denial."[6] So, it's one man's struggle against "the scientific establishment". Fringe. Far from being a "great scientific mistake", Mann's "hockey stick" graph has been replicated – "Upwards of a dozen studies, using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original hockey stick. These reconstructions all have a hockey stick shaft and blade. While the shaft is not always as flat as Mann's version, it is present. Almost all support the main claim in the IPCC summary: that the 1990s was then probably the warmest decade for 1000 years. A decade on, Mann's original work emerges remarkably unscathed." "So far, it has survived the ultimate scientific test of repeated replication." The National Academy of Sciences has investigated the original graph, and "agreed that there were statistical failings of the kind highlighted by M&M [McIntyre & McKitrick], but like von Storch it found that they had little effect on the overall result." These quotes come from a source showing the majority view which was added to the article on 22 April,[7] briefly deleted then moved to the lead on 5 May,[8] then removed by Cla on the basis that this was Syn.[9] There has been considerable discussion on the talk page about meeting WP:WEIGHT by showing the majority view on the topic, but so far majority views have been excluded.[10][11]

It should be appreciated that "Although it was intended as an icon of global warming, the hockey stick has become something else – a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists and their critics. The contrarians have made it the focus of their attacks for a decade, hoping that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists."[12] . . dave souza, talk 07:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Now I understand the debate. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry if it's a bit complex but think that gives the basics. . .dave souza, talk 17:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Most Published Research Findings Are False. -Atmoz (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As the study says on improving research, "most research questions are addressed by many teams, and it is misleading to emphasize the statistically significant findings of any single team. What matters is the totality of the evidence". And when more than a dozen peer reviewed studies over many years come to variations on the same basic conclusion, contrarians use unreliable non-expert claims to deny that conclusion. The study uses examples from medicine, interesting parallels have been drawn between tobacco industry advertising and the campaigning against climate science.[13] We can only try to use the best available sources with care. . dave souza, talk 17:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, a more recent paper responding to that study concludes that while most research findings are false, we clearly demonstrate that replication of research findings enhances the positive predictive value of research findings being true. . . dave souza, talk 17:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I got the answer I needed, pls carry the arb case debate back to the arb case. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I just posted a section on the evidence talk page giving my side. I think I'm right. They think they're right. You have the enviable job of trying to arbitrate it! Cla68 (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for change to be made in DYK Queue 3

Hi again Rlevse, I see you're certainly a busy editor, so I'll just get straight to the point. If you look at Template:Did you know/Queue/3, you notice there are 4 articles (all about Michigan Wolverines) nominated for the second hook. I would like to add a fifth, which is the article titled '1996 Michigan Wolverines football team'. In other words, the hook will go "...records in years such as 1990, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 include ...". I'm not the primary contributor to these articles, it's TonyTheTiger. However, the alternate hook (which has been picked) was proposed by me, so I believe adding another phrase will not matter much. The 1996 article nomination is still in the Template_talk:Did_you_know nominations page. If you wish to know, the reason why I'm doing all these is because the voracious (:d) TonyTheTiger has been constantly churning out year to year Michigan Wolverines football team article DYK nominations. It'll get boring if the same topic gets repeated on the Main Page again and again, hence my desire to merge where possible and desirable. Btw, I've alerted a DYK admin just in case this somehow doesn't get through in time. Thanks, AngChenrui (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, done. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Pointer re Climate Change

I realize that it is very much past the evidence deadline, but I think it's important that AC closely evaluate the recent flare up at Robert Watson (scientist), where an IP editor added sneaky obviously defamatory BLP vandalism (that Mars has a greenhouse effect and the subject of the biography had repeatedly gotten that fact wrong), is reverted by WMC, and then, because it's WMC doing the reverting, the BLP vandalism is edit warred back in by Marknutley, GregJackP and WVBluefield, while WMC is brought before the enforcement board for not explaining his vandalism revert. Hipocrite (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that in 26 minutes, Hipocrite reverted the same material in the article three times [14] after filing an RFE on marknutley for violation of his editing restriction (this was not material that was sourced by marknutley, it was added by an IP and by GregJackP as part of a refimprove). This is an article that is subject to probation and enforcement. After the first reversion of marknutley, he filed a RFE on marknutley, then reverted twice more for "BLP exemption" which is purportedly his excuse for edit warring. I am an observer and have not edited that article or any of the probation articles. Whether nutley violated his restrictions or not, it is questionable whether Hipocrite approaches you with clean hands. Minor4th • talk 21:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've prot'd the article for one week and am looking at it. Argue the issue on the case, not my talk page. I'll post an exemption for posting. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my only comment and I'm stepping away from it. I'm sorry if I left my comment in the wrong place. Minor4th • talk 21:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you mean now. Thanks. Minor4th • talk 21:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an article that is subject to probation and enforcement - that is questionable. Unlike a whole pile of others, it hasnt been tagged William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if so, it is now due to this edit war and the subject of the edit warring. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Without wishing to comment on this particular flare-up, my understanding was that the CC probation automatically applies to articles in the topic area whether or not they had been tagged. The tag is, as far as I understand it anyway, merely a courtesy to editors to put them on notice that the probation exists and that they need to bear that in mind when editing. But ignorantia juris non excusat and all that. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think ChrisO is correct, although some evidence of where one of the enforcement admins stated this would probably help. Cla68 (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's right there at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation#Remedy, which states that "Pages related to Climate change (broadly construed) are subject to the following terms of article probation". The probation is given effect by that remedy, not by the tagging, which as I said is merely a method of informing editors about the existence of the probation. Suppose there was no tagging (disclaimer: I did much of it, in the early days of the probation). That wouldn't have made the probation inoperative, since the tagging was never actually required by the remedy. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for protecting the page. I was actually about to do the same, but I think it will be far less controversial with you as the protecting admin. MastCell ^Talk 22:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional diffs

Hello - as per your request for more recent diffs, I've added to my evidence section. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence#Addendum re: Thegoodlocust. Cheers and have a good weekend. MastCell ^Talk 00:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this should go in the case or not, as it is fairly minor (pun intended) - I had gone to the RPP board via TW and posted the request there (see diff in my evidence) and shortly after that you protected the page. I'm sure Minor4th assumed, as I did, that your action was in response to the RPP request. Do I need to correct the statement I made on that? Sorry to bother you on your talk page. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 15:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes correct please, I didn't see your request til a few minutes ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I corrected it in my section as well. Greg's right -- I did assume that you were responding to his request for protection (not that you wouldn't have come to the same conclusion anyway). Minor4th • talk 15:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

CHALLENGE/SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION

From my talk page:

As clearly expressed in my post exchange with Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) my username DOES, in fact, refer to a cat - it means "predatory canine + kitty" - and if all other incarnations of compound words with derivatives and/or etymology linked to the word 'pussy' are allowed in Wiki space, I'm very willing to defend this position without changing my own compounded expression of choice...and to exhaustion, if necessary.

The subjectivity of language should not dictate the inherent intention; nor should I be victimized by arbitrary indictments of my free option to title myself, which we all enjoy with a great deal of autonomy here, as free thinkers.

Please continue this conversation with me - Wolfpussy (talk)

Best.

Wolfpussy (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Queue move

Done. --Allen3 ^talk 00:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Travel

Have fun Dude. Take lots of pictures and bring me back something. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Before you go overseas!

Hi Rlevse, I have tided up the July 8 section of the DYK nominations page. Please take a look there! Thanks, AngChenrui ^Talk 07:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain. For the ROH The Big Bang! nomination, there was a discussion whether it should be moved to April Fool's DYKs. The result was to leave the next reviewer to decide. You can decide. For the year by year Michigan Wolverines football team nominations, I did some merging as there was a long list of them. Almost every year from 1990 to 2004 had a nomination. I did some merging. The finalised hooks are all out there, I just need people to approve it. You can help me get this job done by reviewing (and approving) the finalised hooks. Thanks! Roger there? AngChenrui ^Talk 07:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And finally, enjoy your trip! AngChenrui ^Talk 07:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Update. R is at the first layover waiting for the next plane. WOOF! — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 12:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Watson (scientist)

Per WMC's request on Talk:Robert Watson (scientist), I unprotected the page. I'll try to watch out for further edit warring and take appropriate action if I spot it, but I just wanted to let you know of my action. If you feel that full protection might be a better way to go for the next week, feel free to reprotect it; I won't consider it wheel warring. NW (Talk) 23:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Posted on article talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Edward L. Rowan

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

• News and notes: Politician defends editing own article, Google translation, Row about a small Wikipedia

• In the news: Wikimania, Former Wikimedia employee looks back, Editing controversial articles

• Vandalism: Vandalism edits fool media and a government, become object of bets

• WikiProject report: Up close with WikiProject Animals

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom to appoint CU/OS positions after dumping election results

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Email

When you get back, there is an email waiting. No rush. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

William Hillcourt to TFA

Hi Rlevse, I know you're traveling but I just wanted to let you know that I've nominated Hillcourt to TFA for August 6 (his 110th birthday). See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#August 6. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked and cleaned up the refs. There is one dead link with no archive. I think we can delete it. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Tks, good work. It's a journal so url not needed, so I rm'd the url. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For the DYK notice. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

if you could share a from a broader perspective....

Hi, there has been an ongoing discussion about at Talk:Abrahamic_religions#Bahai (along the parts above it) that boils down to, I believe it's fair to summarize, whether the Baha'i Faith should be in with even smaller religions or have a section of it's own - I believe it's been agreed that it should be present to some degree and that it shouldn't be noted in parallel with the other religions. But there is difference of opinion on the narrower question. Smkolins (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hiya Rlevse, I did what was needed on my DYK nom, could you please review it and tell me what you think. His awards and honors need expansion but that won't be difficult, I should have it done within a day. :D Thanks Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 11:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it, also could you check my nom for DirectHit. If not that's fine. Thanks in advance. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 05:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Improved it as per suggestion. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 10:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean bare URLs, isn't it sourced properly? Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of them being WP:RS, it's their formatting. Compare the format of web refs here: Edward L. Rowan to the web format in your DirectHit article. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah easily fixed :D, thanks for the heads up. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 22:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Is it all good to go now Rlevse? Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep! Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, and thanks again. I wasn't so familiar with citing sources in the relevant format. The RefToolbar doesn't seem to be working for me. I'll have to fix it. Anyway thanks again :D Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 23:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved

With respect to the current arbcom case I view Lar posting as uninvolved in a case involving WMC Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Request concerning William M. Connolley and Kim D. Petersen as inflamatory at best. Polargeo (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Today's Flare up

As a drafting arbiter on the climate change case, I would like to notify you of this.[15] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

GEEZ!! — Rlevse • Talk • 18:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is intimately related to what I have just informed you about above but now comes back to you several edits later with added spin. Polargeo (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

SwisterTwister Day

Thanks! I never would imagined having a day named after me. :) SwisterTwister (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Excirial's 24 hours of fame

Such a pity it is almost over already, but it sure was a nice and enjoyable surprise. Thanks a lot! :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Glad you enjoyed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK Question

Hey, one of today's DYK hooks reads odd, and is rather misleading overall. "... that the 2007 Indy Japan 300, an IndyCar Series motor race held on April 21, 2007, was uniquely held at Twin Ring Motegi, a non-American location?". "Was uniquely held"?? Besides reading poorly, this is only a minor deal - it just happened to be the one year that only one country other then the US (Canada often holds 2) hosted the event ... not at all a big deal. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it at T:DYK/Q so it appears it's already been on the main page, so afraid it's too late. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

need a mop

Hi; User talk:I dropped the soap needs protecting and User:68.48.145.24 is him being a prat. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
some vacation ;)

Done, yea, we're awaiting the return flight right now and chilling out in the room. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's one of the usual suspects. I spotted him last night on his eighth edit (to AN/I). He knows me; referred to my Moby Dick account. And he just hit my talk page ;) Looking forward to the PD. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I indef'd the guy on your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks, my section heading was a hint re myself. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dopey needs his talk page taken away ;) He's at SPI, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

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

SPI closed; interesting others found. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Aren't You Supposed to Be on Vacation?

Seriously! Put down the smartphone or laptop and back slowly away. Vacation, you gotz it. Now enjoy, and don't be bothered with Wikipedia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Guilty as charged ;-) In my defense let me point out there were massive gaps in my editing this week. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

PS, we all had a blast this week. Lots of fun, non-wiki fun that is. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Good, glad you had fun :) I just like giving ya a rough time :) Where'd you all go? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Email. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sitting at the airport at zero dark thirty. — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 08:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Flight at second airport got cancelled. Damn airlines. — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 18:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is why I drive :) Glad you finally made it home. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back. Sorry about the crappy flight; sounds like it was worse than even my recent experiences. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It sucked. Half my family is still at the second airport. And they wonder why airlines are so poorly thought of. I've already rough drafted a page and half complaint to the airline and the FAA. Other than this, the vacation was great. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I made a bit of a complaint to the airline for my flight, and all mine were on time. Sounds like you've got a plenty good case for complaints. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You'd have a heart attack if you saw my letter. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse, you can call them directly tomorrow at 1-866-TELL-FAA or directly send it in to the address below...

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Ave, SW

Washington, DC 20591

I didn't see an email address, but they probably can give you one via that toll-free number or verbally tell the person on the line your complaint. This is definitely something they need to look into. I would also send one into the airline you flew on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

THANKS! I had already addressed the letter to the airline and the FAA. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Who am I ?

Am I lotje or Ida Shaw, sorry but I still did not figure out how to deal with this new situation. This looks like a digital identity crisis Can you tell me how I should proceed? Thanks a lot :) IdaShaw (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

? — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 08:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I Am So Sorry

While tinkering, I had your "Today" page open, and I messed up and saved mine one your page, when I caught my error I quickly rolled it back. I hope this didn't mess anything up. I feel awful and am really sorry. I'll take my trout now. *hides, embarrassed* - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

U R duly trouted. — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 08:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

*Ping* re Brazilian image

Resolved

Where did you go?--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Email. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

*Ping* re Brazilian image. ;)--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You there, brother?--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail a week ago re: File:Logo UEB.svg, did you get it? If not I will resend. Basically, pls retrieve the deleted Commons image and send it to Begoon, he will upload it here for us, and I will fix the licensing.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Resend. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Saw this, because the page is on my watchlist, having posted below. Provided the file is ok to upload here, I can edit it and "clean up" any errors in the svg before upload. Haven't seen the image at all, but I'm presuming that's why this route was suggested. As you were, now - forgive the intrusion... Begoon^talk 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you!--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thumperward close

Obviously, I agree with your close - I supported. :-)

The reason for the post is not to compliment you on closing it the way I liked, rather to congratulate you on your comments in the closing rationale.

RFA should not become a competition to find something someone once did wrong, it should rather be a genuine evaluation of their prospects to benefit the project if granted the tools. I think you looked at it that way, and that deserves acknowledgement. That's all I wanted to say, really.  Begoon^talk 18:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you very much. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I also thought it was a good close - possibly biased. as I supported, but was obviously going to be close. I think you nailed the issues—I trust candidate will note the concerns and that will lead to becoming a better sysop.--SPhilbrickT 18:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, very kind of you. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I also welcome your closing comments - it is very helpful to have a full and detailed closing rationale. As your comments are useful, and will be read by a good number of people, would you consider going back and doing a copy edit? It appears you had a few changes of mind while writing it, and have not completely tidied up. The same thing happens to me quite a bit when doing AfD closes (the window is so small!), so I tend to go back and have a second read through. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 18:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't change my find, I was fixing typos, missing words, etc after I first posted it. Do you have something specific you feel needs fixed? Thanks for the support. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I supported, so I'm obviously biased, but I too liked your rationale. I think it showed a lot of clue and commons sense, something that seems to be lacking at RfA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, correct closure. Regarding SilkTork's comments I think the following passages read awkwardly and/or ungrammatically and could do with some attention!

• ... and the busted disambiguation link, but the disambiguation link issue ...
• ... including the during the RFA.
• ... I while I find there are concerns here ...
• On a related note while I want to comment ...

Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, ugh, can be hard to proofread your own stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A bit late to the party, but I'd like to say that I totally agree as well. Connormah^talk 03:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice!

Wow, thanks for the kudos! Sorry I didn't respond earlier -- it was also my wedding day! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell's Day

We totally had the same idea. I got a request to give HJ his own day last night and ya beat me to it. :) I was going to award it at Midnight (when I do mine). Darn! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah, would be a double, I left a short note that saying what I said above. I am trying to not "cross paths" with you or Dylan, so I am grabbing other people you (and he) hasn't. No worries though, just great minds thinking alike. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

• News and notes: New interwiki project improves biographies, and other news

• In the news: Wikipedia leads in customer satisfaction, Google Translate and India, Citizendium transition, Jimbo's media accolade

• WikiProject report: These Are the Voyages of WikiProject Star Trek

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Discussion report: Controversial e-mail proposal, Invalid AfD

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My day

Wow, thank you very much! :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You made my day today, 3 August, thank you! I will add a Bach cantata today, latish for next Sunday, due to vacation. Thanks for taking care of them on DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Username Change

Hello :) Would you mind changing my username to Peter.C because I feel like my username is not liked by other users on Wikipedia. Thanks! :D Irunongames • play 01:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Light front holography

References added to light front holography. Some editing done for more clarity. (talk)Conjecturix (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ngo Quang Truong

Thanks for that :) YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 02:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. His integrity and competence really impressed me. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Again...

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Chzz

As you may be aware, Chzz recently posted on his talkpage that he is taking a wikibreak. I gather something recently happened that has discouraged him. I was going to put a wikibreak template on his page but am not sure which one should go there. His talkpage has been racking up comments since his announcement and I think one or two may added stuff to his plate. Could you take a look and maybe put an appropriate wikibreak template on his talkpage. I ask you because you have recently been to his page and are an admin. Some editors might not appreciate a regular sluggo like me doing the same even though being bold is my specialty. ----moreno oso (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. ----moreno oso (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Australia biology

Howdy,

Thanks for looking at the articles on the biology of Australia. user:Casliber is a wonderful editor who has improved much of what I've written. I'm not worthy of any of these awards, and I feel much embarrassed. Also, I've been very rude and unpleasant to other Wikipedia editors who probably didn't do that much wrong. Actually, I'm not really a Wikipedian at all. I just love the flora and fauna of Australia. What I think about is wonderful Australian plants and animals, and to hope to write a half decent article and take a good photo. Thanks to user:Invertzoo, that great lady who helped me so much. She is magnificent.

At the moment I have a Wiki question. It's regarding photo copyright. Someone sent me a photo of a very rare plant, and they want me to write an article on it. They donated the photo copyright, and said so in their text in the e-mail. But I can't figure out the legal status of the photo from a Wiki point of view. And I put similar photos on before, but they were deleted by Wikipedia editors. If we could get this legal stuff figured out, I could help promote more of these glorious Australian plants and animals. This is one of my weak points. I'm not a lawyer. But if someone sends me a photo of a wonderful plant or creature in good faith. And they donate the copyright. I don't want to let them down.

Someone sends a photo to me of an extraordinary plant or animal. They say it's OK to waive their rights to the photo and they want me to write an article on it. How do I make it OK for Wikipedia to use?

thank you again for helping the world know more of the fabulous biology of Australia. Poyt448 (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Cas is a great guy and wikipedian. As for yourself, don't be so hard on yourself. You do fine work too. As for the images, get the person or organization to send you an email releasing rights to the image (lately I've be using CC-BY-SA-3.0, sometimes PD, but any free license will do. It needs to explicitly the license they release under. Saying "wiki can use it", etc won't do. Then upload the image to Commons and put an OTRS pending tag in it and the tag for the license they listed. Then forward that email to the commons address on my tools page, see User:Rlevse/Tools#OTRS. It's always backlogged so contact an OTRS person (such as me or whomever, not sure if Cas has access) and give them the subject line of the email and they should be able to find it. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Light front holography on DYK

Thank you for your help !

Best, conjecturix. (talk) Conjecturix (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter

We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants ( Sasata (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK file protection

Hi Rlevse,

Please make sure DYK files are fully protected when you're loading a set into the queue. In the past week there have been three images that were unprotected or semi-protected (1, 2, 3). Shubinator (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I usually do. Are you saying the three were ones I loaded? And at least one of those was protected on commons. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, they were loaded by you: 1, 2, 3. File:Ethiopian 9 Saints Mural Axum.jpg was protected at Commons, but only semi-protected. MatSci protected another one after DYKUpdateBot raised a warning; if the bot hadn't caught it, it would have remained unprotected until it hit the Main Page. Shubinator (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Back to your talk. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No need to get defensive, I'm politely pointing out unprotected images. The Main Page has been bitten in the not-so-distant past by unprotected images. I care about making Wikipedia a better place, and have no wish (and no time) for side squabbles (and honestly you should understand that better than most here). I have User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors watchlisted, so naturally, whenever the bot catches something, I take a look the next time I'm online. In other words, no, I hadn't noticed you protecting other DYK files; it is appreciated. Since you mentioned it, I'll post at WT:DYK reminding the other admins to protect images. Shubinator (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Another three in the past week: 1, 2, 3. Shubinator (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hiya

Rlevse has been made a member of the Order of the Mop, for their work as an admin and is entitled to display this award for being such a great admin, Kind regards and happy editing, Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 06:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations you are member number 2! :D Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 06:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Why thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 08:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK Wonoboyo Hoard

About DYK Wonoboyo Hoard. Thank you, I'm honored. :) (Gunkarta (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)).

No problem. It was an interesting and a nice looking pic for the DYK size. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How exciting

I logged on briefly late last night after a long road trip and found out it was my day! Thank you - I will try not to let it go to my head.--Kubigula (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

-;) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

• News and notes: Canadian political edits, Swedish royal wedding, Italian "right of reply" bill, Chapter reports

• In the news: Gardner and Sanger on why people edit Wikipedia, Fancy and frugal reading devices, Medical article assessed

• WikiProject report: Always Expanding: WikiProject Images and Media

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Major MediaWiki release, password security, vulnerable MediaWiki installations, and more

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Interim measure

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Interim restriction Polargeo (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I'm just mostly a lurker when it comes to the climate case. I have to say I was quite surprised by your comment here. Since you are helping to write up the PD does this give a hint as to what the PD is going to look like? Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Time will tell. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Niagara Parks Butterfly Conservatory

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

How nice!

Hi Rlevse, It is such a wonderful experience to log on and see I have a message, and then see that the message is in fact a spectacular award from someone that I don't even know! (At least I don't think I have "talked" to you before, but I could be wrong about that.) You certainly made me happy... Many many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 00:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Little Pamir

Nice to hear today that Little Pamir, an article I created (or at least converted from a redirect to an article), has been nominated, but it was not I who nominated it.--Mhockey (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ali Bushnaq, Dudu Yifrah and Micha Yaniv

Hi Rlevse, this DYK was promoted, and posted to a Queue. Then somebody nominated the article for the deletion, and it was taken off Queue, and re-listed. Today or yesterday it dissipated from the hook page. Nobody even bothered to notify me. I hope the article is kept, and if it is it should be promoted. So I added it back to the hook page. I hope that's OK. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's kept quick, it'll be okay, but an article under DYK has little chance of making DYK. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"The article under DYK has little chance of making DYK" What does it mean?--Mbz1 (talk) 22:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm guessing Rlevse meant: an article under AFD has little chance of making DYK Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks. The deletion request will be closed in the morning of August 9 I hope, so basically it is three more days to wait. IMO a deletion request, which is closed as "kept" or even "no consensus" should not prevent DYK promotion of the valid article. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? If the article is kept to deny DYK for it is unfair, isn't it? There were other cases, when after the deletion request the article was promoted.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, it's still at afd and it may not be a keep, it could well be a merge. On top of that, it was left on the noms page for longer than normal. There are other cases of noms being removed with pending AFDs too. So no, I don't think it's unfair; unfortunate but not unfair. We can't leave noms on the nom page forever. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, nothing lasts forever as you probably know. The deletion request is going to be closed in 2 days. I do not think 2 days could make such a big difference.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

From the looks of it, it'll probably close as a Keep. I went and gave my vote in the matter. Just relist it to DYK after the AfD closes. Silverseren^C 01:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The article was kept. The hook was restored T:TDYK. May I please ask you to add it to Queue. I believe this particular article is very special because it is about peace. It should not be denied DYK. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Kudpung's day

Hey, thanks! I can't possibly think what I have done to earn the barnstar (I'm rather gnomish and don't get many), but this will be much cherished especially as it come from a 'Crat. You too, have a nice day. --Kudpung (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: (You can remove it from your page, but not mine) / BarkingFish day

Hi Rlevse, respectfully, I feel that if it concerns me, I can remove it if I so wish. It was nice of you to do, but I don't want a day named after me, I just want to get on and work. So if you'd be so kind as to remove it and give it to someone else, that'd be appreciated - either that, or i'll remove it and give it to someone else. Your call. :) BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 09:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I hand it out not you. It is not yours to give it out. Just let it go. I really don't understand why you're making such a fuss over this. I'll put "declined" by your name if you like. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Either that or just assign it to someone else. I'm not making a fuss, i simply don't want it. Thank you all the same. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 10:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

All I try to do is recognize people for good work on wiki. I had one other person do something like this. I really don't understand it. I'll go mark it declined. To me it is kind of pointless to give it to someone when a subsequent day has been given out already. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for respecting my wishes. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 10:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Only just noticed

I thought any user could warn any other user of anything on thier talkpage. I only just noticed the fact that you had popped up and added this rather judgemental comment without even attempting to address the serious issues I had brought up. You have generally failled to stop any drama whatsoever and the only time you step in is to tell me not to give Lar a warning. The only people arguing for sanctions against me at arbcom are Lar (who I started an RfC on) and someone who I have no recolection of any previous contact with (JWB) who suddenly popped up and decided I needed to be desysopped for being critical of Lar and made it his prime mission to acomplish this. Oh well good to know I am going to be dragged over the coals by you for trying to get Lar to play by the rules. I was informed that you loathed WMC so I suppose it is not surprising that you are a big fan of Lar. Polargeo (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Massive assumptions by you. And I am only one of several arbs. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - noticed it too late

Hi; I was just about to put a message here to say I saw it a moment ago. I think PrepExtra is also free at the moment, if you want to compile another set. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Putting the Sheila Varian article up for GA. I'd appreciate a few eyes to help me sort out legitimate criticism from the sort of stuff that isn't. I sometimes get hooked too quickly by those with a taste for drama. Been working on that, but I haven't had a GA review where I'm lead editor for a couple of years, literally, so am a little nervous. Thanks Montanabw^(talk) 20:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me know when someone reviews it. It'll prob be awhile, GAC is usually way backlogged. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the...um, day. :P Though I have to ask, what did I do that got your attention? Silverseren^C 00:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, lots of article rescues helped ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

2010-08-08 is my day ?!?!

Whoa, thank you, Rlevse! Not sure what I have done to deserve this, though. Thank you, nonetheless. Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Terry Sanford

Sorry, I just put a link to the article in Arabic--94.97.34.143 (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I only see you put in an Arabic interwiki link. Shouldn't be a problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 11

Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)12:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

• News and notes: FBI requests takedown of seal, Public Policy advisors and ambassadors, Cary Bass leaving, new Research Committee

• In the news: Wikinews interviews Umberto Eco, and more

• Admin stats: RfA drought worsens in 2010—wikigeneration gulf emerging

• Sister projects: Strategic Planning update

• WikiProject report: Chocks away for WikiProject Aviation

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

BN

I'm never one to edit others' talk posts, so just a friendly suggestion to look at this post again. No offense taken if you delete this message after. Best. Townlake (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, someone else fixed it. Townlake (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Block question

I suspect i will never know what was happening here, and am thus utterly neutral, but is this also appropriate to be blanked as part of a block?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. All I can say about Tisane is there are multiple issues involved that are best not discussed onwiki. Thanks for understanding. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

no, thank you. i did some searching, broadly. This cuts too close to home for me in my professional capacity (i did some more looking). I trust you will perform due diligence in reviewing all pertinent pages. its obviously in hand, and ill leave it up to you. I wont copy or link, by the way, but i put a link up for a minute on my userpage before i did my searching. can you remove it from my page history? godspeed. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

perfect. thanks.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

RFAR/CC

Hi Brad, any idea when there might be some movement on this case? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, who's Brad? :P MastCell ^Talk 16:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Brad, but there was an unexpected delay, as you prob know, but this week we made lots of progress and should (hope ;-) ) to have have a PD up this week. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Sorry for the Brad bit, I got a bit lazy cutting and posting the question. :o I actually don't know about the delay. I have been away from wikipedia for around 10 days. Did I miss anything interesting? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Decision_timing and you can figure out the rest of that. Then there's the not too surprising fact that the natives are getting restless ;-0 — Rlevse • Talk • 22:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK on Space Hawk

Thanks for the information ... that's my first DYK hat-tip, and it's pretty cool! I thought it would make a great DYK, although I struggled with exactly how to phrase it. I'm very happy someone else apparently thought so, as well, in order to nominate it (be that yourself or someone else)! --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy Rlevse's Day!

Rlevse has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as Rlevse's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, Rlevse! Signed, Neutralhomer A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Why thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 11:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks

again.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

New DYK Nom

Hi, I nominated Temple House Manor and Castle for DYK. Fridae'§Doom | Spare your time? 07:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Two articles one DYK nomination

Did I do it right? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as the hook yes, but to ensure you get credit for both, you need a DYK make for each one. I've add the second DYK make for you. (open the nom in edit mode and you'll see it, or check the edit in my contribs just before this one). — Rlevse • Talk • 21:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 23:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And glad that other DYK worked out for you. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! It is not only for me. It is for peace in Middle East. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Question D=YK

What happened to Family Guy Road to DYK. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 10:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's in Queue 2 right now. See T:DYK/Q. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

White tiger

I don't think there is a technical term for its condition, but see the white tiger article for more info. What is certain, is that true albino tigers are completely white, and lack stripes.Mariomassone (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

... sincerely for your message about the space en.Wp gave to General strike against Leopold III of Belgium. I read you help some people. I am speaking and writing English so bad that I need much help! Sincerely! José Fontaine (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC) (Incidentally I am not retired but I am 64 years old)

DYK Discussion

I just meant to give it its own page as the topic seemed to be rather expansive. I've had other discussions in Meta before, should I put it somewhere else? - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It just seemed odd to put something specifically enwiki on meta. How about an RFC on enwiki itself? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

I am absolutely thrilled to bits! I was having quite a horrible day in the world-outside-wikipedia and I didn't realise until today that I had been so honoured! (It's Saturday afternoon, here in New South Wales) Well, I had better go around the traps, and not rest on my laurels! Amandajm (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you protect an image on Commons?

Would you please protect File:Albany coat of arms.svg on Commons? Due to mediaWiki auto-magically converting SVG images to PNGs it is not possible to {{C-uploaded}} the image (both the upload and rename functions check file MIME type against file extensions and this can not be overridden with administrator privileges). --Allen3 ^talk 00:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm honored

Thank you for awarding me my own wiki-day! I'm very pleased, and it put a bright spot in what otherwise would have been a boring first day of school! May I ask what I've done to earn such an honor? Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 17:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

...and you must have been reading about my last couple of days (which continues, of course). Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually no I wasn't, don't know what you mean about your last couple of days. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This fun .. and it's associated various talkpages around the project. I certainly needed the "day", so thanks, you're awesome :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

• News and notes: Book publisher apologizes for plagiarizing photos by Wikipedians, brief news

• Spam attacks: Large scale vandalism revealed to be "study" by university researcher

• In the news: Supportive communication and missing incentives on Wikipedia, and more

• WikiProject report: A Pit Stop with WikiProject NASCAR

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: ArbCom releases names of CU/OS applicants after delay

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternate and/or rename advice

Hi, Sorry to bug you, but yours was the most familiar name on the bureaucrat page. So, I have an issue with my user name, or more specifically, others may have an issue. You see, the "l" in my username, "Qfl247", looks like a "1", and is doubly confusing because the "l" straddles the letter-number transition in the username. Depending on the font, there could be no difference. I want to make a few templates, and I thought I'd make an alternate account called "QFL247" to make it more straight-forward (and to prevent impresonation/doppleganger type stuff). When I went to do it, I was not allowed to create the QFL247 account because of the similarity. So, what do you recommend? Is it possible to make the doppleganger QFL247? Should I rename to QFL247? If I rename, can "Qfl247" be a doppleganger, or is it the same issue? Thanks for your time, Matt, a.k.a. QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 21:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC) (my sig will not change, regardless)

I suggest this-pick the one you most prefer, make the other a doppelganger, properly tagged, and don't actually use it. Let me know. I can help if it won't let you do something. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the lower case "Qfl247", and would like the upper case "QFL247" to be a doppleganger. Can you do that? It will not let me do it. QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 23:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It won't even let me do it, I think because of the lower case l vs upper case L thing. I'll post at WP:BN — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Check the box that says "Ignore spoofing checks". For admins and accountcreators, they can override the title blacklist. —fetch·comms 01:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternately, try this? Change it to a 3rd, temporary and completely different name, and then back to the new once all the edits have reattributed? --Dweller (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Fetch's idea worked. I never had this issue before so I didn't think of it, DOH ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It worked! Thanks everyone for your help! QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 13:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman

Hi; if you have some time next this week or over the weekend, could you look over the Truman article and see what needs fixing? I read through the FAR and will try to get it back to FA, or at least GA, in the nearish future. As you are a fairly involved editor with the article, I'd just like to know your opinion of what needs work. If you don't have time, I'll put it up for peer review later. Thanks, —fetch·comms 01:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Very commendable. Here's my suggestion - work as best you can on the FAR comments, then ask people, including me, to review before FAC or GAC. I don't have time to work the FAR stuff right now, but will help where I can. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, that'll work great. —fetch·comms 18:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK? nomination for Princess Victor of Thurn and Taxis guidance

Rlevse, I just finished an article entitled Princess Victor of Thurn and Taxis and as you will see if you have time to take a look at it, there is a lot going on in terms of notable hook material. Because of your expertise in crafting hooks for DYK?, I was wondering if I could pick your brain as to the best way to encapsulate several of the article's notable points into a single hook. I'm going seek the guidance of a few other editors, but wanted to check with you to see what guidance you could provide! Thanks again for all you do for Wikipedia! --Caponer (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

First, put her birth and death dates after her name. I'd go with something about when Kid McCoy was falsely arrested for robbing Leonora, he wrote the Ballad of Brixton Jail. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Need an Admin's Help

I came across an anon user who was doing a great deal of gnome work, was going to write them a nice note (which I still haven't done) and noticed a vandalism warning, so I did some investigating. It was issued by User:Dusti on August 7 for this edit. I wrote Dusti a note about using Huggle slowly and checked the contribs and found two other edits that were reverted by Huggle that were seemingly fine. It seems what ties these edits together is they are all by anon users. I think, while Dusti is doing some good reverts, that there may be some misuses mainly due to editing too fast. Could you have a word with the user (who hasn't edited since the 15th and before that the 7th)? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You already talked to Dusti. Let me know if nothing improves. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie...I figured it might carry more weight coming from an admin, some people listen to you all more than us editors. :) OK, I will keep a watch on the edits. If I see anything else out of place, I will let you know. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#My_DYK_never_appeared_on_the_front_page...

Hi Rlevse. :) Can you re-add the hook? Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Worn Me Down

Hey Rvlese,

An article I had proposed for DYK was removed as unresolved, I thought that DS was making a joke making the hook verge onto negative BLP, as in she cries about it. I didn't believe that the hook I had proposed was negative, stating that she had gotten emotional, I was ignoring their joke. I would still like to try and put it up for DYK, what do you think? - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no. This was nominated on 7 Aug, DS last commented on 11 Aug, your last edit to the article was on 8 Aug, and it's now 18, almost 19 Aug, way past the normal 3-5 days allowed for fixing issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No big deal, but for the record, I didn't think that DS made a legitimate request. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You should have stated so in the nom thread several days ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK disapproval of Amelia Gade Corson

The issues raised regarding Amelia Gade Corson at DYK were directly addressed and the person who raised the issue responded that the sources provided were acceptable. Why the disapproval? Alansohn (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You didn't address this by SimonTrew "but the excerpt you've quoted doesn't say the bet was placed with Lloyd's of London – is it in the reference elsewhere?" — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The full source is available via subscription and backs that the wager was placed with Lloyd's. I'd be happy to send a copy of the .pdf. Alansohn (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to ask User:Allen3 to decide what to do here. Also note it was past the normal time allowed for fixing noms. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The primary issue raised was whether the sources behind a paywall supported the article claims. With no evidence provided showing any reason to disbelieve the assertions of an established contributor, I will AGF and accept the hook. The hook has been placed in prep 2 as the next step in scheduling a Main page appearance. --Allen3 ^talk 12:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

thank you!

I have no idea what I did to be recognised in such a way, but it was much appreciated :) sonia♫ 04:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I will echo User:Sonia's thanks and implicit query: To what do I owe the Awesome Wikipedian honor. I don't think we have intersected in RL or on WPediting. Nonetheless, I appreciate it. Amusingly, it came when I was away on holiday and off WP for 10 days. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Both well deserved. When I find deserving people or they are suggested to me, I put them on my pending list and work through the list. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

re your block of User:LittleTinkerbell

Good call, thanks.

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For defending the Wikipedia against the voices of darkness. Herostratus (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you very much. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm?

User_talk:Larvatus ... a quick glance does not show me the legal threat, so I'm not touching the unblock with a 10'pole yet. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I gather this would have been a threat made off-wiki, say by email? Gwen Gale (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that would explain my inability to find it, and would make sense...could also have occurred on his blog. Perhaps merely a decline stating that appeals to ArbComm only? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I read Rlevse's note in the block log as saying any reviewing admin should email arbcom before doing anything at all with this. It looks to me as though something has happened off-wiki. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein has declined the UbR but I think any admin who wants to look into this or further review it is free to email arbcom and ask what it's all about. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

...and well-said by Sandstein. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think Larvatus can either email arbcom himself, or post to his talk page asking that an admin email arbcom and further review whatever it is that has happened. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Per Sandstein, he can email Arbcom/BASC if he wishes to appeal. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Thanks for letting me know about the Bamber issue. I posted a tighter version of it; see Template_talk:Did_you_know#Jeremy_Bamber. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Me too. I didn't even think of counting the hook characters. Dincher (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've kind of developed an eye for when a hook is too long. If I think it's too long, I paste the displayed characters (not the wiki markup version) into MS Word and click the word count summary. I discount (pictured). — Rlevse • Talk • 20:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision

In the absence of the assigned clerk, and because it is quicker to do than to ask other Arb Clerks, I have semi protected the above Proposed decision page. I have sprotected indefinitely, but as I am an involved party I suggest that someone "take over" the responsibility of the protection and the appropriate duration. I have also RevDel one of the vandal edits, but since this is more difficult to assign to another editor I shall desist. I am copying this to all drafting ArbCom members, and the Clerks talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like follow up has been done. Thanks for taking care of this. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

advice requested

Hi - I request your advice on a matter of anti-vandalism patrolling regarding this particular revert. This was not vandalism, but for obvious reasons the words triggered my reflexes. I am not familiar with Katy Perry's works, so I did not know it was a legit song. Of course, upon realizing I promptly apologized and restored the edit, but it is very aggravating to me (let alone to the editor who was wrongly warned) that I slipped up and potentially cost Wikipedia a good editor. I have tried to slow myself down when RC patrolling, but this still happened. I request your advice on how to avoid something like this in the future. Shiva (Visnu) 19:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

First, if you haven't already, contact the person who was wrongly warned and tell them you're sorry. As for not doing it again, just be more careful, cautious, and investigate or seek input if you have any doubts or questions. We all make mistakes, I sure have, so do your best to learn from them. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - yes i did not lose a moment in apologizing to the person. Shiva (Visnu) 23:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Who is the above in Memory of? If it is one of your friends or family, my condolences go out to you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. In the end we're all human beings and I sympathize with whatever loss you may have experienced. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - condolences and sympathies, as appropriate. Hope all is well with you and yours, or that it will be 'ere long. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Same here sorry for your loss Secret ^account 15:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes. Kingturtle (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My deepest sympathies extend to you and the family who is grieving with you. May you find peace and love in the memories you cherish. Sincerely, —fetch·comms 16:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sympathies for whatever situation you happen to be dealing with...I hope everything will be fine given time, and hopefully that will be sooner rather than later. Again, you have my sympathies. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 18:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Reports of my early demise are greatly exaggerated

(variation of a Mark Twain quote)

Sorry if I've confused people here, that was not my intent. Reports of my early demise are greatly exaggerated. This has to do with a very dear buddy of mine, not myself or a family member. Throw in regular life, wiki, and arbcom stress and you can figure out the rest. I just need some days here.

Thanks you for your concern. I'll be back in some number of days. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Whew---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear about you, very sorry to hear about your friend...my condolences about your friend. Take Care Dude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I can only second this message. I am truly relieved that you are fine, but seeing the situation this is bittersweet news at the very best. Very best wishes, and take care of yourself. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes from me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

When you return you will be entitled to use:

Rumors of this user's death were greatly exaggerated.

---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for not having left us yet, but my sympathies extend to you and your friend, and his/her family as well. ArbCom isn't easy, and RL stress on top of that is borderline impossible; please, do take care of yourself, as Excirial said, and don't feel at all like you need to come back and deal with the project any time soon. Props on earning that userbox, by the way ;) —fetch·comms 02:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I can well understand that the loss of a close friend would cause someone to take a few days off. However, be advised that on your return some of us conspiracy nuts might want real evidence that you are the same Rlevse and not some sort of Rlevse-clone like in the dreaded Clone Saga and/or that you haven't yourself died and later "got better" like some other comics characters. OK, some of us take the hero-worship of ArbCom members a teeny bit too far. ;) John Carter (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse, glad you are still with us. Take some time away if you need to and come back when you're ready. I know a bit about the pain you're feeling as I lost a furry friend last week. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Take care. Memories are the best comfort. Shiva (Visnu) 19:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm relieved to hear that you're okay, but I'm sorry about what happened to your friend. Best. Acalamari (from Bellatrix Kerrigan) 19:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

All of our hearts are with you in this troubling time. It's always difficult to lose a close friend, and I wish you the best of luck. Take care, Rlevse. (X! · talk)  · @861  ·  19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

confused

Please point out my wheel warring. As far as I can remember, I have never wheel warred. It is a rather bullshitiferous poorly thought out proposal. Jehochman ^Talk 17:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clearly laid out in finding 15. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see how that adds up to wheel warring. In what way was sysop access used? Has WHEEL ever been applied this way before? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the rules.

What's so non-collegial and disloyal about your actions is that nobody ever voiced a concern to me before. Nothing was posted on the evidence page or the workshop page (as far as I know). Nobody pointed out concerns to me. I have not been given any chance to address the concerns. Have you and others (who?) discussed an accusation against me and posted it at the eleventh hour? If so, this is dirty. I'd never treat you that way. In fact, as far as I remember, I've always treated you very well and been supportive when you've had hard times. I'm not perfect, and I might have been confused when I re-closed that thread. I don't even remember the incident.

A thoughtful person would first show me the diffs and ask me to explain why I took various actions. Lar deserves the same courtesy too. A thoughtful person would give the accused a chance to respond. Posting a proposed decision does not count as giving a person fair chance to respond. It's more or less a dirty sneak attack. Jehochman ^Talk 18:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, but it's in MastCell's section of the Evidence page: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Evidence#Wheel-warring_with_Jehochman, and it's been there since the early days of the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have responded here. The issue turned out to be much shallower than I expected. I hope you will reconsider your porposal based upon my explanation. Doing the hard work around here is rather thankless, as I am sure you have experienced yourself. It is a very bad idea for ArbCom to become overly strict and start sanctioning uninvolved admins who volunteer to serve in crappy assignments. Jehochman ^Talk 21:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: relevant deleted content here — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Many thanks to all who posted here, on AN, or emailed me this week. It meant a lot to me and was truly appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Good to see your user and talk pages back to normal, Rlevse. I hope things are going as well for you as possible. (Probably should have posted earlier, though I've been recovering from jetlag lately.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you back :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Dincher Day! It reminded of when I was a kid and I complained to my Dad that there wasn't and official "Kid's Day". He told me everyday is Kid's Day. I like Dog the Bear too. My wife has Miss Kitty which is also a Teddy Bear. Dincher (talk) 03:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Something Ain't Right

See User:Rossmartin90‎ pop-up on various television station talk pages asking the same question: "What station in [insert city] leads the news ratings?" This has gone on since 12:50pm EST today, 15 minutes after the account was created. Something seems fishy and this feels, to me, like trolling. I just posted this comment on the page, but as of yet have not received a reply. What do you think? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Tis strange, but it's not blockable. Have they done something blockable? May want to keep an eye on him. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Not yet they haven't. Just seems trollish. When I commented, all edits stopped. So, I really don't know how to take it. I have his contribs open in another tab and am checking every few minutes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

After the last edit (and my comment) no posts were made and User:Deconstructhis has reverted the user's posts asking them not to use talk pages as a forum. This wasn't done at my request, they just did it. I will keep an eye out for further edits from the user, but I kinda doubt we will see any. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I also added a welcome template and a specific uw template to their talk page to assist them in understanding how talk pages are supposed to work. This just seems to be a case of a straight forward serial misuse of quite a few talk pages as a forum by a new user; but I'll keep an eye as well. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Great plan. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Account Insanity

A while back you blocked User:216.155.153.104 they are now constantly wiping the page and posting that they should be unbanned because they did not do anything (but they did). Thought I would send this on to you since you were the initial banner. From first glance it looks to be someone unrelated to the vandal who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia. Drewerd (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Protected their talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope neither of you mind, I added User: to the link above, so it points to the correct place.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What was up?

There was a notice saying "IN MEMORY" on your userspace yesterday. What was it about? Who were you mourning? -- 92.10.161.95 (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Rlevse/Archive_19#Reports_of_my_early_demise_are_greatly_exaggerated — Rlevse • Talk • 20:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

When you're back active ... no hurry ... really, no hurry

Someone wants your attention (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Where should I raise this?

I need to raise an issue concerning MickMacNee (talk · contribs) and his conduct at AfD, but I'm not sure exactly where is the best place to do so.

The basic problem is that MMN continually badgers any editor who !votes "keep" at an AfD discussion where he has nominated the article for deletion. To give some examples, there is the Falls of Cruachan derailment and its subsequent DRV, and currently Agni Air Flight 101 and Filair plane crash. I'm not overly proud of my actions in the Falls of Cruachan derailment debates, but MMN sent my wikistress meter the highest it had ever been over that one and I deviated from my normal policy of concentrating on the issue instead of the editor.

What I am hoping to propose is a restriction on MMN preventing him from badgering editors who participate in AfD debates. The restriction would not prevent MMN from nominating articles for deletion, but restrict him to giving a rationale for deletion, and only being allowed to participate further in the debate if an editor asks him a direct question or requires a clarification of something. Imposing this restriction would allow other editors to contribute to the discussion without fear of intimidation. It would also prevent votes like Gabinho's "Keep. Just to annoy MickMacNee" in the Agni Air debate. Although probably not a valid vote, I sympathise with the sentiment behind it.

So, where do I go with this one? Please reply here and I will check back later. Mjroots (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI — Rlevse • Talk • 11:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Raised at WP:ANI#Disruptive behaviour at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Omission

Resolved

 – I for one consider this matter finished. Although this discussion did not produce a common understanding, I am moving on, and wish you well. Jehochman ^Talk 03:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal fails to acknowledge the 22 hours and large number of additional comments received between the two closures. The way you've presented it, a reader might get the wrong idea that it was an close-open-close-open sequence, which is not the case. It was close-open (we need more discussion)-discuss-discuss-discuss-discuss-close-open (we need yet more discussion)-discuss... I do not see the substantial difference between re-opening a discussion or starting a new discussion. What would have been wheel warring is if Lar had applied a sanction, I had removed it, Lar had applied it again, and so on.

I'd appreciate if you would add something about the 22 hour waiting period, and the large number of additional comments added to the thread during that time. The reader can then draw their own conclusion.

As far as relations between you and I, please look at this situation through my eyes and try to understand why I am so upset with you. Jehochman ^Talk 21:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. I appreciate them. Jehochman ^Talk 21:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned you by name here: [16] Jehochman ^Talk 03:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• I still don't get it. Why do you want to admonish me for one revert, made after substantial discussion? After Lar re-opened the second time I did not continue. We in fact had a discussion, which you cited, that ended cordially. This does not make sense at all, and I would like an answer. Are you trying to destroy collegiality on Wikipedia? What did I do to deserve this harsh treatment? I am extremely angry at you for what you are doing, and the best way to resolve this would be to discuss it. Jehochman ^Talk 15:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • When you calm down. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • My blood pressure is 115/75. Is that calm enough? Jehochman ^Talk 21:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Martintg's concerns

It wasn't the first time Jehochman reverted another admin. He reopened two cases [17][18] previously closed by Sandstein [19][20]. The whole thing subsequently became a total shambles, with AE sanctions applied then vacated. In the end Sandstein's original decision to close the AE reports without action was vindicated. --Martin (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• • @JEH care to explain this? @Martin - is this in the CC case evidence somewhere? Are you saying this is a pattern? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Ta. If I remember, these matters, June 2009 Eastern European disputes (not Climate Change), eventually did turn into a request for arbitration, and the matter was reviewed at some point, maybe not on that request, but a subsequent one. (Wikipedia:EEML where Martintg was identified as a disruptive editor, and my name appeared prominently in some of the email evidence. Maybe he's got an axe to grind here?) Do you think it is wise to tack all this on to the present case? It seems rather tangential. In any event, I am happy to explain anything I've ever done. For the moment, can you point out the policy that says we cannot reopen a discussion? The first diff cited by Martintg was followed by this statement by Sandstein where he seems agreeable and invites me to proceed. The next few diffs by Martintg are unclear. They don't seem to show me reverting a close. A few diffs later I politely asked Sandstein to modify his close. This all looks pretty routine and cooperative to me. Jehochman ^Talk 20:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• No, it isn't in the CC evidence yet, but I can add it if you want. I came here to your talk page for another reason but felt compelled to comment here after seeing Jehochman accusing you of "trying to destroy collegiality on Wikipedia", a comment I thought was somewhat audacious given Jehochman's propensity of stepping on other admin's toes. Sandstein wasn't too happy about Jehochman's actions at the time, as I recall, as his judgement was being directly called into question (although Sandstein would probably deny it now for the sake of preserving "collegiality"). Jehochman's actions caused a hell of a lot of wiki-drama which in the end was totally pointless and a waste of time, as Sandstein original action was vindicated in the end. --Martin (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've asked Sandstein to comment here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • For the record, Martintg was a member of the Eastern European mailing list which engaged in prohibited off-wiki collusion and disruption. Martintg was heavily sanctioned in the WP:EEML case. At the time of my intervention I suspected deep problems and called for further investigation. It took about six months, but the problem was eventually rooted out. Jehochman ^Talk 21:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Heh, Sandstein has already made a relevant statement: "previous decline of another admin to impose further sanctions... is not an administrator action and an action that is not taken cannot by definition be undone" That does seem relevant to a situation where Sandstein declined to place a sanction and closed a thread, and I reopened the thread to discuss imposing a sanction. Jehochman ^Talk 21:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Reading the diff it is clear that Sandstein was unaware of a previous decline (asking what decline?) and imposed a block based upon a community sanction (rather than arbitration enforcement) independently of that decline. Arbcom imposed discretionary sanctions regime have specific provisions prohibiting the overturning of decisions administered in AE space. The bottom line was that your actions resulted in no net outcome beyond that already determined by Sandstein, just a lot of angst and pointless wiki-drama. --Martin (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
        • You and your mailing list colleagues carried out a massive disruption on Wikipedia, see WP:EEML, and now you want to blame me, an uninvolved administrator, who was attempting to control your disruption. That's rich. Jehochman ^Talk 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Look, I'm not blaming you for anything, and WP:EEML is irrelevent. I came here for another matter, saw you moaning to Rlevse that you only made "one revert", "are you trying to destroy collegiality on Wikipedia?" and "What did I do to deserve this harsh treatment?". I merely recounted my experience that it wasn't the first time. You should take your proposed admonishment like a man. Shrug. --Martin (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there something unmanly about standing up against an injustice? Editors close and unclose discussion threads all the time. This is normal practice on Wikipedia. Unless the venue has specific rules (e.g. Deletion, Arbitration) a thread ends when everybody has had their say. If Rlevse and ArbCom want AE to be different, they can say so and put a notice at the top of the page: "Don't undo an administrator's closure of a thread". I will gladly follow any guidance provided. Jehochman ^Talk 11:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Reminder to Martintg

Per WP:EEML, enacted 22 December 2009:

7) Martintg (talk · contribs) is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban. (emphasis added)

Coming here to carry on a vindetta against me regarding Eastern European dispute enforcement appears to be a violation of the above sanction. Martintg, I suggest you cease commenting. Rlevse is aware of the issue and will follow up, I am sure, and also deal appropriately with any potential violations of the arbitration ruling. Jehochman ^Talk 23:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no "vindetta". Given that there Six degrees of separation between almost anything and so it would be no doubt possible to conjure up some kind of relationship to Eastern Europe and thus wiki-lawyer that any discussion about your behaviour is somehow a breach of WP:EEML. However my discussion above is related to the Climate Change case process and proposed decision in relation to your apparent behavioural pattern. Specifically it is about your interaction with Sandstein. The context of your interaction with Sandstein is irrelevant, it could have been related to Timbuktu, but the fact remains that you had previously behaved in a manner that was apparently repeated again in the CC case establishing a particular pattern. I've only provided a data point. Your response provides yet another datapoint. Rlevse is awaiting a third datapoint from Sandstein. I'm sure that Rlevse can competently evaluate these datapoints and draw his own conclusion. --Martin (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, your discussion above is not about CC. It is about EE arbitration enforcement matters of approximately 14 months ago. Jehochman ^Talk 12:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Sandstein

I've been asked to comment here. From what I can tell after a look at the AE history (I don't really remember any more what was going on then), Jehochman unclosed two AE threads that I closed as no action after no other admin had commented on them for some time. This struck me as ... unconventional and maybe not exactly helpful, given that at the same time Jehochman had at the same time also made a request for arbitration in the same matter. I asked him to undo that closure, but in reply Jehochman unclosed another thread closed by me. I then said, fine, go ahead and do something if unlike me you think some action should be taken. As far as I remember (no time to check now), Jehochman then did not take any action, and drama-filled discussion continued for a while, but I remember that I found his comment that "The reason I am still a sysop is that I do not take actions that I know other administrators object to" to be a bit at odds with his actions in that matter. On the whole, I do not think that his actions were either very collegial or helpful, but I don't know whether that has any relevance to the matter now before the Committee.  Sandstein  06:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Editors may disagree in good faith. When they do, they should discuss matters. Rather than starting a new thread, it may make sense to resume one that has been closed very recently. In the instant case, there was a big problem with EE editing, with several concurrent threads going at WP:AE, some closed and some open. I wanted to try to resolve matters. This did not succeed on the first try, but eventually we had the EEML case where these matters were subject to review, and disruptive, off-wiki collusion was exposed. In general I don't make a habit of reopening threads but I may make an exception once in a while. Do you think that is unreasonable? Jehochman ^Talk 10:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Refocus discussion

We have had enough tangential discussions. Let's get to the meat of the matter. Rlevse, would you please answer the following questions about your behavior:

1. You, a sitting arbitrator, proposed a sanction against me that is not supported by the person who posted the evidence.[21] As a minor player in the CC dispute, I had not been following the case closely and was completely unaware of that evidence and had not given my side of the story. Nevertheless, you jumped to a conclusion without getting any input from me. Is that correct? I believe you skipped an important step.
2. The "evidence" you cited includes exactly one revert made by me, and you believe the one revert, made after at least 17 hours of intervening discussion and dozens of comments in an attempt to form consensus, constitutes edit warring. I believe that in the entire history of ArbCom, nobody has ever been sanctioned for edit warring based upon a single incident constituting a single diff. Am I wrong?
3. After making your proposal, you did not notify me so that I could respond. I only found out about your proposal by lucky chance. I was out camping last week and with slightly different timing could easily have missed the entire thing and never had any chance to comment before voting started. Is it your normal practice to talk about people without informing them? You didn't notify User:2over0 either. Only later when Carcharoth noticed what was going on, a clerk contacted 2over0 by email.

In the past I've admired your work. Do you understand now why I am so disappointed in you? I don't expect a fair hearing at this stage. My reply is buried in the talk page where I'll be lucky if any of the other arbitrators even notice it.

Not to be all negative, may I suggest the following ideas:

• Don't sanction admins who volunteer for very hard jobs and then make a few mistakes. Sanctioning admins will only discourage their further participation. As unhappy as I am about my own situation, I am much more unhappy about the proposal against 2over0.
• Do point out mistakes and tell people how they could do better. User talk pages are a good venue.
• Rather than naming and blaming Lar, make a general proposal that all admins are advised to periodically rotate out of hot disputes to avoid personalizing conflicts. Lar's difficulties could have been avoided if he had walked away and been replaced by somebody else.

Our goal is to fix problems, not to alienate volunteers. Jehochman ^Talk 11:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I share some of Jehochman's concerns, and endorse his suggestions. Further I think if neither party thinks there is anything wrong with the other party's actions (at some remove), it's rather odd to claim that is a wheel war. Or even a revert war. Especially with the amount of amicable discussion that occured. I have to say I find the whole thing odd in the extreme, this is not like you, Rlevse. ++Lar: t/c 12:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have any opinion on Jehochman's concerns as to whether he was treated fairly or not. However, I do think that if there is to be a discussion of aspects of the proposed decision, it should take place on the PD discussion page, so that all editors are aware of the discussion and can participate. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I second that Polargeo (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Friends, users are allowed to talk to one another as they like, and discuss Wikipedia business. You folks haven't been mentioned in this conversation, and I have given notice to Lar and MastCell, who were mentioned or referenced. Moreover, the PD talk page is defective because there's way too much activity there and things are too easily overlooked. Proposals should have been posted to the workshop for discussion at an earlier stage. Please, let Rlevse respond to my concerns. They are directly relevant to him and his actions. I will cross post my suggestions to the PD since those may be relevant to others. Jehochman ^Talk 13:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC) and 13:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether specific editors are mentioned is beside the point. Sure editors can edit other users' pages, but what we have hear is a lengthy discussion on an aspect of the PD, and this just isn't the place for that. I also don't think it's to your benefit to have this discussion here. Personally I see merit in your beef, and others may too. But if there are those that don't, they should know about this and have a chance to weigh in. If the PD page isn't functioning properly, that's not for you or I to decide. I don't think that users can just unilaterally decide "this isn't working," take their discussions elsewhere, and notify only editors they wish to get involved in the discussion. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually only want to hear from Rlevse, not the other editors I noticed. The reason I noticed them is that it's rude to talk about people behind their backs. Wikipedia should not be hidebound by process. We do whatever is necessary to get a job done efficiently. Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not being "hidebound by process" to suggest that administrators make substantive comments concerning the PD on the PD talk page. This smacks of an end run, as I'm sure you must realize if you calmly contemplate it. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rlevse, per the requests above, I have restated my questions at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Questions_for_Rlevse. Please respond there at your convenience. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 12:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Henriette on her own power

I've responded to your query at my nomination's entry. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for William G. Higgs

The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

question on vandalism

Hi Rlevse - I have a question on these types of edits, where Muslim IP/registered editors insert "peace be upon him", "PBUH" and "SWT" after the names of Muhammad and Allah. What is the best way to revert those edits? Obviously it is wrong and violates WP:NPOV, but somehow it doesn't feel appropriate to use Huggle and call it outright vandalism (unless the user decides to start a revert war). Does dealing with this separately (i.e. trying to explain to the user the problem with his edits) also make it wrong to continue to revert his edits myself, as it might be construed as participating in an edit war myself? I could really use your advice on how best to handle these type of problems. Thanks, Shiva (Visnu) 19:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

definitely explain to them first. If it's a big problem, start a thread on article talk page too. Page protection is one option. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: FA

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

Note

Hi Rlevse, thanks for leaving such a great note. Happy editing! Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

mail

if you don't have it now, you will soon. Dlohcierekim —Preceding undated comment added 13:56, 30 August 2010.

Your userpage in a category

Your userpage User talk:Rlevse/Archive 13 has a category, and so appears in Category:Typography.
As the guideline on userpages describes, this is undesired. It is suggested that you edit the userpage to prevent this showing. It can be done by adding a semicolon (:) before the word Category, like this: [[:Category:Typography]]. -DePiep (talk) 11:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, all instances (there were three). Jehochman ^Talk 11:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the whole page Bracket was transcluded (incl. 3 templates). Solved, abuse of non-emoticon {{:)|devil}} -DePiep (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Soon and Baliunas controversy by WMC

I've placed a RPP at the RPP notice board, but thought it might be more appropriate to bring it to your attention. I've notified a couple of other ArbCom members also. I don't have a preference for which version is protected, if we can stop the unnecessary drama. If this is out of line, please let me know on my talk page, I'm not trying to stir the pot. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 22:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The contributions history shows that in the past couple of days WMC has made two edits and you have made three (in both cases treating consecutive edits as one per WP:EW). Given those facts, if he's edit warring why aren't you? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Boris, check your count again. You aren't really counting the minor edit (changing "was" to "were" - plural tense) as a revert are you? That it happened to be the last edit before WMC removed material makes your mistake understandable, but it was a day before and not connected to this issue. GregJackP Boomer! 23:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, correction is acknowledged. So your argument is that you made the same number of reverts as the person you're accusing of edit warring? Given that fact, if he's guilty why aren't you? Having said that, I think the article should be protected. People (on both "sides") just can't leave well enough alone. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Will add this to the group finding on edit war protections. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 August newsletter

We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.

• Pool A's winner was Sturmvogel_66 (submissions). Awarded the top score overall this round, Sturmvogel_66 writes primarily on military history, favouring Naval warfare.
• Pool B's winner was Casliber (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured articles this round, Casliber writes primarily on natural sciences, especially botany and ornithology.
• Pool A's close second was Sasata (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured pictures this round, Sasata writes primarily on natural sciences, favouring mycology.
• Pool B's close second was ThinkBlue (submissions). Awarded the top score for good articles and topics this round, ThinkBlue primarily writes content related to television and film, including 30 Rock.
• The first wildcard was TonyTheTiger (submissions). Awarded the top score for did you knows and valued pictures this round, TonyTheTiger writes on a number of topics, including baseball, American football and Chicago.
• The second wildcard was White Shadows (submissions). Someone who has helped the Cup behind the scenes all year, White Shadows said "I'm still in shock that I made it this far" and writes primarily on Naval warfare, especially U-boats.
• The third wildcard was Staxringold (submissions). Awarded the top score for featured lists and topics this round, Staxringold primarily writes on sport and television, including baseball and 30 Rock.
• The fourth wildcard was William S. Saturn (submissions). Entering the final eight only on the final day of the round, William S. Saturn writes on a number of topics, mostly related to Texas.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. Geschichte (submissions) only just missed out on a place in the final eight. Resolute (submissions) was not far behind. Candlewicke (submissions) was awarded top points for in the news this round. Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Stone (submissions) for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Timothymarskell

Please see [22]. There are questions about what to do with this RFA page, which currently remains "on hold", though the candidate is blocked. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Closed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Request opinion on AfD of Greater Bangladesh

Hi - I request your opinion on this AfD discussion concerning Greater Bangladesh. Thank you, Shiva (Visnu) 13:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not familiar with that topic at all. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

New feature

Hi, There is this new "review" feature that helps protect pages, I am not sure how to apply for it for Blessed Virgin Mary. Do you know? There are just too many semi-vandal edits, none of which has added substance, and it is best to semi-protect or even better, get the permanent needs review feature on that page. Thanks History2007 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Flagged revisions is probably what you're talking about. I added that feature to the article. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks. Perhaps you can do this one too, which is in the same situation: Mary (mother of Jesus). Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK Issue

I got a DYK a couple weeks ago and I just found out today it was incorrect. The DYK was: "that Peter Stephens died in November 1757, 10 months before the town he founded was chartered in September 1758?". It should have been "October 1758" and "11 months". The town's petition for charter was not officially approved until October 12, 1758, it was petitioned on September 21, 1758. So, technically, under the information I had previously, it was correct, I am just off now by a month. Do we go back and correct the DYK, leave it as is, or scrap it and start over? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

that's almost a month old. Why are you just now learning of it? Don't you watch your noms? Did the reviewer notify you? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it was a mistake I made. Totally me. In the book I based the September 1758 date around was incorrect. My contact, the curator at the Newtown History Center located in Stephens City actually clued me in on this after looking at the final product of the FA before it goes on the front page September 5. It was then I learned my mistake and realized I gave incorrect information on the DYK. The information I had previously was from a book, which was dating back to 1758, so I guess mistakes were made there. If I had known about this before, I definitely would have corrected this before it went up to the Front Page section of DYK. I am sorry, just don't know how to correct it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see it's already been to DYK main page. Just make a note on the article talk page and leave it there. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. I am really sorry. First DYK and I goofed it up. I will make a note and leave it be. Again, sorry. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The scouting award in question looked fine to me. Dincher (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Happy Morenooso's Day!

Thanks for thinking about me and nominating me in this way. I appreciate all you do. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks you for my Wikipedian of the Day award! Appreciated. Herostratus (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK hook for Irina Antonenko

Hi, I see you moved the re-listed nom for Irina Antonenko to prep1, using alt3, a different hook from the original listing. Was just wondering while I didn't participate in the original listing, I suggested the used alt after its relisting. Would I get a DYKnom credit for this? Thanks, Strange Passerby (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Afraid not. The person(s) who had major parts in writing the article get credit and the person who nominated it at DYK get credit. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Strange Passerby (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rlevse

Hiya Rlevse, could you review my DYK nom for The Bill? Thanks, Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 07:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Commented there. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually mine is further down, it's in September 1, sorry about that. Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 02:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See note there. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at my nom for Adolf Heyrowsky, here? Thanks, —Ғяіᴅaз'§Đøøм | Tea and biscuits? 10:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Issues noted. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:WIKIHOUND

Hi, could I ask your help with a case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING that is entering the page Talk:Our Lady of Mount Carmel from another page, namely Leo XIII. The user (Xanderliypak) was told to stop Wikihounding, but is continuing. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is he hounding you other than that talk page? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Only on talk pages, but it would be best to avoid the escalation. I see no reason why I have to talk with him as my "constant companion" on other talk pages beyond Leo XIII. A gentle comment to him would help. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Give me links to the other talk page threads. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That is the only recent one. All was quiet for 2-3 months, and I do not remember what was there before. Then he popped back on Leo XIII and did 2 reverts. But I just do not want it to start again. If you think it is not a big deal yet, we will let it pass, unless it restarts again. History2007 (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If they're all in the same topic area, it can be hard to prove he's hounding, he may just be interested in the same articles. Now even in the same area, if he's showing minutes after you on several articles, that's hounding. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks. We will see how it develops. History2007 (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Bach cantata 14th Sunday

Hi, I see you busy on DYK, could you please look at Special occasions for Sep 5, coming soon? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In queue 3, should appear 1am 5Sep, London time. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for full protection

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Due to a recent edit war involving myself and WMC at Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I have requested full protection for the article. The relevant talk page discussion is here. Cla68 (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

While I'm VERY disappointed at another CC edit war, thanks for reporting it and requesting protection. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Since WMC seems to have been involved in 9 of the last 10 edit wars in the CC topic space,[23] please issue a temporary injunction against WMC until the PD becomes finalized. One editor shouldn't be allowed to disrupt Wikipedia this much. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If my experience as an arb is anything to go by, asking them to consider an injunction at this late stage would be a time sink for them. It would be simpler for a) people involved voluntarily committing to some temporary editing restriction until the case is closed, in order to keep themselves in check or b) the community to consider imposing one. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I note you updated the PD [24]. There are other editors than those mentioned who have been involved in several of the edit wars, maybe if a user has been involved in 3 or 4 of the edit wars they should also be mentioned for fairness. As this would clearly show a pattern of edit warring over multiple articles. Polargeo (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We're still working on the other editors. It's one of the things we're trying to wrap up. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should just delete all the climate change articles. End the battle by eliminating the battleground. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a really great idea. And no, I'm not joking or being sarcastic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris: If you nominate them for deletion, I'll vote yes. :D A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So would I. Minor4th 12:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue for such a discussion. Please try {{prod}}, and if that fails, {{AfD}}. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 12:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The normal procedures obviously wouldn't work in this case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, something tells me I'd get called for POINT if I did that. :-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

For instance, JohnWBarber needs to be mentioned. They seem to have quite a battleground mentality.[25][26][27] Former account of theirs Noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a substantial block log for disruptive editing. Jehochman ^Talk 12:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Cla is involvd in at least 5 of the "edit wars", but for some odd reason isn't mentioned. Although, as I've pointed out on NYB's page, many of these so-called edit wars aren't. The current "war" has a total of 2 reverts, for example; apparently that is now the threshold for 2 week protection William M. Connolley (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As alluded to above, we'll be posting more on those involved in the edit wars this weekend. It's one of the things we're still working on. In the latest one where you claim there are only two, that's ignoring the earlier part from the preceding days, which Javydb obviously considered this to be a "slow burn" edit war. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing since June. Are you counting the Scibaby socks, too? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the request for page protection is clear.[28] The SciBaby reverts [29][30] were not cited. WMC, you'd be wise not to revert Cla68 at all in this venue. (Likewise, he's be wise not to revert you.) Instead, take discussion to the article talk page. You're both knowledgeable and competent editors. You should be able to work together to improve these articles. Cla68 has numerous featured article credits and is easy to work with in my experience, if you focus on quality rather than spin. Incidentally, I think it is a bad idea to lump editors like Cla68 and WMC into the same category as some of the others who are going to get sanctioned. Jehochman ^Talk 14:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The reverts on that page are part of a larger edit war. Hasten the day that Arbcom concludes this case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The edit wars do need to be looked at closely. Often they are not straight, simple revert wars. It woukd be helpful if Arbs would look into who is reverting what content in or out of the articles. There is the beginning of what could turn into an edit war on Climategate and The Heartland Institute-- and it's not just a content dispute when two editor keep reverting in blog-sourced commentary and even blog 'comments - these are experienced editors who absolutely know that blog comments cannot be used to cite content in articles. And 3RR is avoided by tag teaming - Cla was right to request page protection on IPCC but unfortunately the exact same scenario is playing out in at least two other articles. @ William - I know you feel strongly about all this, but why dont you please stop violating basic rules that you know youre violating -- so you dont have to get banned. I'd rather you not get banned because you can add a lot, and I know you can behave yourself and be reasonable because I've seen it. Sorry for making this appeal here but theres a trainwreck in progress and it doesnt have to happen! Minor4th 14:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• The Gore Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another one. Cla68 (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar

		The DYK Medal
		For smoothly running the full cycle of DYK updates over the last several months, nearly single handedly (which is quite some job), and other help to the project. Materialscientist (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 02:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Alt tags

You're welcome. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by alt tags though. Can you clarify please.4meter4 (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about Alt attributes? There is no such thing as an alt tag in HTML. Jehochman ^Talk 11:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:ALT, used with images. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

counting

One cannot be in 11 of "nine" edit wars <g>. Really! (This is not to be taken as any sort of serious criticism, and I wish you well in the deliberations. I suspect way too many admins are weighing in, and getting more editors involved is not helping a lot) Collect (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Objection

[31] When i did this revert [32] it was to the consensus version and there was no edit war ongoing at the time, please remove your accusation of my involvement in an edit war at this article, thanks mark nutley (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also the Monckton one was to keep a BLP violation out of the article, why am i accused of edit warring to keep a BLP violation out? mark nutley (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also the Lawrence Solomon article, i was not edit warring there, i removed one edit from the info box. This was not edit warring at all mark nutley (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Also the Michael Mann one I did one revert three days before protection, how is that edit warring? mark nutley (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change i was not involved it this one at all mark nutley (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Verbal also involved in 4 edit wars

If the cutoff is 4, then Verbal should be listed too:

• Solomon 7/10: [33][34]
• Hockey Stick Controversy 7/10: [35]
• Watson 7/16: [36]
• Gore Effect 9/4: [37][38]

You're right, I've added Verbal. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rlevse. ATren (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: I think approaching this from a pure numbers standpoint is a bit misleading, since every case was different. For example, WMC was right to revert on Watson, while MN was right to revert on Monckton and Solomon. I think a more general finding, e.g. that so-and-so were the most active in edit wars (without citing hard numbers) would be preferred. ATren (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC) ATren (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the quality and "motivation" in the reverts needs to be considered as well. I added a new section about Verbal on the talk page, as his reverts appeared to be pure cheerleading in support of WMC without any talk page discussion or other involvement in the articles. As ATren said, many of the reverts listed were enforcing policy, sometimes enforcing BLP policy. Minor4th 17:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

We're looking at that. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Good deal. Minor4th 01:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I just saw the proposed decision and it refers to something that's been bugging me a bit. In the section about me why does it specifically mention me for edit warring and not people who have edit warred far more than me? I've participated in 2-3 (I think) edit wars in the area the entire time I edited in the area - not over a subsection of time. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As in the PD re you, there's more than edit warring. And we're not done with the users involved in the 12 listed edit wars. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Main Page TFA Error

A minor correct on the TFA on the front page currently. The very last line should read "Stephens City celebrated its 250th anniversary on October 12, 2008." This was a mistake on my part when I wrote the blurb. If you could correct that line, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Give me a link to correct it at. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Just was coming by to let you know it has been corrected by another admin, but thanks for looking. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I just found another goof I made (dammit!). On the line "The town was founded in the early 1730s by German immigrant Peter Stephens and was chartered by Peter's son, Lewis, on September 1, 1758." That date should be "September 21, 1758". Link, I think is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 5, 2010. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sir, much appreciated. I should have caught that the other day, but forgot. Thankfully my contact at the Newtown History Center caught my mistakes (what we are correcting now), else this could be a problem. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Harassment on my Talk Page

Please take a look at the harassment on my talk page by User:Viriditas. I am asking for action due to your being listed as an "Admin willing to make difficult blocks," and would hope that you can warn him off, and if that fails, block him for harassment. I am copying this message to several other admins on that list also, that are familiar with the SPI and the situation. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything OK?

I saw that your votes were struck from the CC case. Is everything OK? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've gone totally inactive on arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, OK. But you didn't answer my question if everything's OK, you know. B-) Anyway, hope things are well for you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Whatever the situation, I hope everything works out for the best. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, I hope all is well. ATren (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Same here, hope all is well. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Ditto. GregJackP Boomer! 02:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• You've continued to be very active as an editor since going inactive on the CC case. Perhaps the understandable code of silence that the Committee members follow prevents an explanation of what's behind your decision to leave the case, and we'll have to judge for ourselves by observing what takes place as the case reaches its conclusion. Anyway, I'll chime also in that I hope everything is ok. Cla68 (talk) 11:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I went inactive on all arb stuff, not just the CC case. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Let me add my good wishes. (To everyone, please don't pry; let's respect Rlevse's privacy.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

  ^-- what he said. Also, thanks, Rlevse, for all the time you have put into the project and for your good work. Hans Adler 00:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

Collect (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood

You've got the material to make a great article out of the witch of Pungo, but I think that you need to give some thought to the article's structure. Allegations of witchcraft just about covers the whole article, but it includes far more than just "allegations".

I had almost nothing to work with for the Samlesbury witches, they were almost a footnote in history, but it might give you some ideas. The big thing missing for me is the social context of witchcraft in Virginia at that time. By contrast, in England witchcraft trials were becoming rather unusual by then. Is there perhaps a Puritan aspect that needs to be explored? Malleus Fatuorum 02:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. By great do you mean GA or even FA possible? How hard to get to GA? Would you be willing to help get it to GA or be the GA reviewer? Someone else came across it yesterday and thought it was solid GA material. Thanks for the help! — Rlevse • Talk • 09:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you could get this to GA without breaking too much sweat, so if you're up for it then I'll volunteer to do the review. FAC would obviously be a bit harder, but quite achievable with a bit of attention to detail. Even for GA though I'd like to see a bit more structure to the Allegations section. Do you have any background on witchcraft in America at this time? It would be good to give a little bit of social/legal context. Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

MF - Probably should also look into ergot as a suspected cause, not sectarianism. Several people looked into this, and I was told about it by a former NYC chief epidemiologist and author of "The Eleventh Plague," Dr. John Marr. Interesting stuff, indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)

Suspected cause of what? Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Witchcraft hysterias. Collect (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ergotism has been a trendy hypothesis to explain witchcraft hysteria, but I don't think it's all that widely accepted, for a number of reasons. Convulsive ergotism is typically epidemic, as a result of contaminated food, so it can't really be blamed for isolated cases. The mortality rate of epidemic ergotism is typically 10-20%, which makes it hard for an outbreak to fly under the radar. Most conclusively, the symptoms of convulsive ergotism just don't fit with the reported manifestations of witchcraft hysteria. "Demonic possession" and so forth are pretty clearly social phenomena, with elements of group fantasy and suggestibility and so forth. If anyone is interested, the definitive debunking of the ergotism/witchcraft link is probably Spanos & Gottlieb 1976, Science 194(4272):1390-4, PMID 795029 (unless there's something more recent that I'm not aware of). Of course, they focused specifically on Salem... MastCell ^Talk 19:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Marr focussed on European examples, IIRC. Small doses do not necessarily result in convulsions, but can provide a lot of hallucinations. Collect (talk) 20:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to put in the work to get this to GA as two people have told me it wouldn't be too hard, but if the ergot thing makes it become a science/pseudoscience war battleground, I'm out. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha... no, you deserve a break. I didn't mean it that way. :) MastCell ^Talk 21:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't buy the ergot hypothesis, and certainly not in this case, in which there was no obvious hysteria and no reported hallucinations. In fact there was rather little hysteria involved with most cases, certainly not in England anyway. Grace's case is interesting because it's relatively late for a witchcraft trial, especially one involving a trial by water, which was never all that popular here and pretty much died out with Matthew Hopkins in the mid-17th century. Witchcraft is a social/religious/economic phenomenon, with different explanations for different cases in different places. The trick is to focus specifically on this case, not get diverted into general theories of the causes for charges of witchcraft. Malleus Fatuorum 20:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

See "Witch of Pungo on the move" section below. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverted your revision [39] to User_talk:Mono

Hello. I submitted this request on behalf of another user (QwerpQwertus (talk · contribs)) and noted that in my signature. Please pass this message on to QwerpQwertus (talk · contribs). Thank you.  ℳono  02:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Erm, Rlevse did that 21 minutes before this message. Might be better to do this manually next time, Mono. Airplaneman ✈ 02:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Still, the message is relevant.  ℳono  02:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It just sounded a bit, y'know, impersonal. This is one of the reasons I don't use CSDH for speedy deletion tag declines. Airplaneman ✈ 03:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverted your revision [40] to User_talk:Mono

Hello. I submitted this request on behalf of another user (QwerpQwertus (talk · contribs)) and noted that in my signature. Please pass this message on to QwerpQwertus (talk · contribs). Thank you.  ℳono  02:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Did that before I posted to your page. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi Rlevse, let's say I used a few public domain books for the article. In some places I copied the text unchanged, in others I changed it a bit. In some places the texts from more than one book were used for the same section. Do I need to do some special tagging to indicate what text came from what book? If so, could you please explain me what tags I should use. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No special tags, but straight copy/paste from PD material of chunks (say a paragraph or more) are frowned upon. Do some copyediting to change it and improve the readability. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Scouter's Training Award

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey Rlevse, thanks for the Star of the day award! It was really unexpected, but nevertheless I appreciate it. If humblingly you need my help for any thing, you can and please do call me up at my talk page. Best! ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 07:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Request to write new article on Allied Artists Pictures / Allied Artists International

Hi Rlevse: You helped break up an edit war almost a year ago that resulted from a court battle between a faction that was trying to infringe on the Allied Artists trademark and the entity that owns the trademarks. There was court litigation going on at the time, and it appears that all articles about both Allied Artists Pictures and its parent company Allied Artists International were removed. In the meantime, Allied Artists International won its lawsuit against Robert N. Rooks, his co-defendants and a number of counterfeit corporations. The United States District Court for the Central District of California also granted a permanent injunction against each of the defendants from any further violation of AAI's trademarks. Now that this case has been resolved through the courts, I was wondering how I can go about writing new articles about both of these entities. Allied Artists Pictures has a rich history of very memorable motion pictures. The trademarks were assigned to AAI in the 1980's according to the United States Patent & Trademark Office, and everything produced since under the Allied Artists (and Monogram Pictures) trademarks was produced by AAI. It seems to me that both entities are noteworthy and should have articles. I don't want to get into trouble, so I'm asking how to go about doing it the right way. Thanks for any assistance you can provide. --Warriorboy85 (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I remember this rather well. It was nasty. Just recreate them from scratch and follow policy such as: no edit wars, no legal threats, user proper reliable references, use neutral point of view, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Again Rlevse: I've gone ahead and started an article that I feel is well referenced. However, I would greatly appreciate your taking a look at it and making sure I'm on the right track and not headed for any trouble with Wikipedia. I want to make sure I follow all of the rules and readily admit that I don't always know what I'm doing. Also, I added the corporate logo and I hope I have all of the required licensing information to allow it to be there. There is a trademark usage page somewhere on their site and I'm going to call them as soon as I can and find out where it is, but I know they allow usage for Wikipedia because I had to get permission once before. Maybe you can tell me if I'm doing anything wrong and if so, how to correct it. Thank you very much!--Warriorboy85 (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Article looks ok. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Silver Buffalo cat

Hi, someone else restored it, I started to populate it, then Nyttend speedied it, I suggested CfD might have been more appropriate than speedy and he restored it, then Fastily speedied it again before I had a chance to finish repopulating. So that's what's going on. DuncanHill (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Wish people would make up their mind. Amazing what people argue over. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, saving your presence, admins not bothering to communicate with each other isn't exactly a new problem.... I don't have strong feelings either way about this category, just don't feel that speedy was appropriate given the closely-timed CfDs with opposing outcomes, and that Nyttend's decision to undo hos speedy should have suggested to Fastily that a little thought or even talk might be good first. DuncanHill (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• If you are interested, there is an extended discussion on Fastily's talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

GLaDOS

Not to make it an issue, but it was very much at least 2x expansion; 12 paragraphs versus 27 paragraphs, every line rewritten, and 21,684kb versus 52,013. Don't really care about it passing as a DYK, just pointing it out. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's done by readable prose per DYKcheck or PDAscript, not by paragraphs. And it has to be 5X not 2X. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Witch of Pungo on the move

For you talk page lukers interested in this...User:NuclearWarfare made Grace Sherwood the lead hook in DYK prep area 2 (YEAH!) on this page: Template:Did you know/Queue. In about 7 hours it should get moved to a queue and then we'll know exactly when it'll appear on the main page. It's a double hook with her hometown of Pungo, Virginia (my first double dyk hook). I've started on the suggestions, please see my edits on her page from 00:01 8 Sep onward. I still have stuff to add to the "cultural background" section. Feel free to help improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been through the whole thing again, particularly that new Cultural background section and I think it looks good to go now. The lead was a little too short to meet the GA criteria, so I expanded it quite a bit; you ought to check that I haven't made a mess of it. Just one thing I don't quite follow: "In the one case that resulted in conviction, the punishment was 10 stripes and banishment from the county." What are "stripes" in this context? Apart from that I think this would now stand a very good chance at GAN, so good luck with it. Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Stripes are lashes on the back, ie, whipping - very common back then. Many thanks for the help. Will press on tonight. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It might be better to say "lashes" then, as I've never seen "stripes" used to describe a whipping before, but I'll let you decide. I hope you don't have to wait too long for a reviewer to show up. Malleus Fatuorum 16:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Lashes redirects to flagellation, stripes was used in the court document, so I linked stripes to flagellation. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Looking through again, there seems to be some inconsistency between "Only 15 witchcraft cases were recorded in the Virginia colony during the 17th century, all but one of which ended in acquittals" and the later claim attributed to Frances Pollard that "Sherwood seems to be the only accused witch tried by water in Virginia, let alone convicted". Should that be convicted as the result of a trial by water? Malleus Fatuorum 16:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can clarify this somehow. She wasn't convicted in the 17th Century, but the 18th. The late 17th Century trials she was in acquitted her, were dismissed, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

But Pollard doesn't say "the only accused witch convicted in Virginia during the 18th century", she says "the only convicted witch in Virginia", which clearly isn't true. Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll recheck the refs tonight. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if your nerves are strong enough, I think you ought to consider bypassing GAN and going straight to FAC with this. Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Two issues...

1. I think the best way to fix the "conviction" confusion is simply to remove "let alone convicted", so I did. It seems clear she was the only one ducked.
2. As for FAC/GAN. Wow, you think this is that good? Honestly, I got soured on the featured whatever processes awhile ago. As you can see on my about me page, I have a lot of F - whatevers, but I got soured on those people like, for example, Academics who are pissed you used book A instead of book B, MOS zealots who are upset you use en instead of em, people who are convinced you have to use a certain phrase when it means the exact same thing, etc. So, I took a long break from it. You can also see my last FA/FL was some time ago. So, honestly you really think I should skip GAN? How hard do you think it would be to go straight to FAC? I'll have to think about this as I've found GA often does a lot of real improvement whereas F - whatever has sadly become appeasing the people who just happen to review your article/list and you get vastly different results depending upon whom you get as reviewers. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

   I do think it's that good yes. Let's face it, if you'd taken it to GAN you'd probably only have got me anyway. In my opinion this would easily get through GAN, but there's such a queue that could easily take a month or more, by which time the momentum may have drained away. Think about it; all I'll say is that if this was my article it would already be at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

   PS. You wouldn't be alone at FAC, I'd be watching your back. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd definitely want your help. I've long felt I'm good at research and gathering the raw info, but suck at good copyediting. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Think about it while you're making the FAC nomination. This is a great article on an American witchcraft trial, so what's the worst that can happen? Tony1 comes along and bites you about the prose? We can fix that. Someone comes up with a source that you weren't aware of? Unlikely. Courage. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Malleus, this is an interesting, engaging, well-researched and well-written article that should do well at FAC. You've done a great job with it - both in the work you've done yourself, and in seeking out talented and experienced editors to help improve the article. This would be a great TFA for October 31! Risker (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you think that this reluctance to face the big guns at FAC might be some kind of girly thing Risker? I'd not considered Halloween, but that's a good point; we need more witch articles. Come on Rlevse, gird up those loins. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• I also think this is generally great work, and it was a pleasure reading it. I made some prose fixes, and Malleus fixed my fixes to even better prose. There are a few minor things, though: the lead says she died in "late" 1740 and the infobox says she may have been born in England, but the body of the article just says she died in 1740 and says nothing of her birth; and I'm not convinced the piece about the Girl Scouts cleaning the statue is really relevant to this article (though I'm sure it's important to you!). (By the way, regarding this, I thought the piece about the jury was redundant not because a woman couldn't lead a jury of men, but because the previous sentence already said the jury was all-female.)

  A more major problem may be the sourcing. I don't see immediately what makes http://www.carolshouse.com/witch/ (ref. 1) a reliable source, let alone a high-quality reliable source as the FA criteria require, and some of the other sources are similar. ISBN 9781596291881, which has a chapter on her, may be useful as an additional source (I have access to it in the library here, if necessary). I agree with Malleus that GA isn't necessary; if you've got a good article, it's just another distracting step on the way. Ucucha 22:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

  • OK..

1. Undid my all female fix,
2. Death - sources say late or Autumn 1740, no exact date
3. Birth - 1640, no exact date, some say Virginia, some say England (another problem)
4. Carol's house matches other good sources, if we need to could we take it out and rely on other sources?
5. what book is ISBN 9781596291881?
6. I'd like to fix these items and anything else we see before FAC as doing so after FAC just causes unnecessary drama. If you who've been so helpful can help me do that, I'll file the FAC. More and more are telling me I should. I guess it's much better than I thought. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it's best to fix as much as possible before FAC. Could you add the pieces about her birth and the season of her death to the body of the article? It's odd to have these only in the lead, and no doubt contrary to some part of the MOS.

Yes, I think it's best to swap Carol's out for other sources. You could still add it as an external link, though. The book is at Google Books here—I think it's not the very highest-quality source, but it may be useful. I didn't read the entire chapter, but it does mention the names of her parents, which are not currently in the article. It may be good to ask someone more familiar with the intricacies of reliable sources (e.g., Ealdgyth or Brianboulton) to take a look. Ucucha 23:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This thread is closed, see new one at User_talk:Rlevse#Grace_Sherwood_AKA_Witch_of_Pungo_Pre-FAC — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

DC Meetup #12

An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch this page for announcements.
—NBahn (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.

Surprised

to see With of Pungo in Q2. Pity it would have hade a good Halloween hook Victuallers (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of Halloween hooks already. I like it where it is ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 19:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

911 Is a Joke

Hi Rlevse, 911 Is a Joke is currently on T:TDYK and is verified, do you think you could move it into a queue so that its on the main page on 9/11? Thanks Smartse (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to voice my opinion on this if I may. I don't think this would be a good hook to have on 9/11. There is enough tension with the Park 51 "Ground Zero" Mosque and the potential (but at the moment called off) Qu'ran burning in Florida and of course the anniversary of that day, to have the potential for people to see this hook as "9/11 is a Joke" instead of "911 is a Joke" on September 11 is not a good idea. I would leave this for another day outside of September 11...I would even consider waiting 15 days before pushing the hook. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Let's note the song is about emergency services, not the 9/11/2001 attacks, but people may not notice that at first. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

A decent hook could be made out of the fact that the Washington Post erroneously tied the song to 9/11. On the other hand if putting it on the main page on 9/11 is likely to inflame passions, I've got no problem with delaying it. 28bytes (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I added an ALT that makes clear that it's not about 9/11. 28bytes (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

When I saw it I immediately thought of 9/11, not 911. This should NOT go on the front page on 9/11. ATren (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Neutralhomer, it would be insensitive to include this on 9/11.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate to meddle (saw this on my Watchlist), but I agree wholeheartedly. Fanning flames = bad. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

While I'm all for wordplay, I'd have to agree that this DYK should run on a different day. Useight (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this going on Sep 11th is insensitive. I think the alt is better than the main hook, but it needs to be a different day. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Scouter's Key Award

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pungo, Virginia

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Grace Sherwood

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the award!

I must say I appreciate the special day award. It was ironic because I was taking a wiki-break... which leads me to ask, just what it was that inspired you to grant the award? Regardless, it came at a great time and I really can't thank you enough! Best wishes to you, always. Jusdafax 20:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I find deserving people and put them on my list. When your name works its way to the top, it's yours. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Admin template

Hey,

Out of interest, where do you get the code for the big purple congrats box? As part of my ongoing quest to hack every template on the project I'd like to have a look at the original, unless it's something custom you use. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 20:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a template perse, at least not that I know of. It's from back when Essjay closed my Rfa and dropped it on my talk page when he +sysop'd me. So you can find it in my archive from that time. To make life easier when I close RFA's, I store it here: User:Rlevse/Tools#Admin_stuff. I don't know if Essjay wrote it code or someone else. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. How'd you like a template version, then? That produces:

If you think this'd be useful I'll move it to templatespace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That'd be great. All I'd have to do is put in the new admins user name I presume. Give me a link. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be my jaundiced view of administrators showing here, but isn't it supposed to be "no big deal"? Why all the showy huff and puff? Malleus Fatuorum 21:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it helps them learn how to get to the info they need. It helped me a lot when I was new and I just try to pay it forward. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Malleus: if we get people to adopt a standard banner then it's much easier to discuss toning down the admin congrats banners in a central place. Right now, it seem to be down to individual 'crats to choose how they finish admin promotions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't even need to put in the name: it uses the BASEPAGENAME magic word, so yuo can just transclude and forget (or subst if if desire). I've moved it to {{admingrats}}. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I like it. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood AKA Witch of Pungo Pre-FAC

OK gang, I took Grace Sherwood and Pungo, Virginia from not even DYK-ready to 5x+ expanded to get my first double DYK hook. Right now they're there as the lead hook with her statue photo as the DYK photo. Then Dabomb87 told me to ask Malleus to help out on the Sherwood article and he did so eagerly doing a great job and told me it's now almost GA ready. I said sure. Then others started helping out and several highly experienced and respected editors started basically saying "Wake up R!, you need to take this to FAC!". Ucucha wrote a few FAC-points we need to work on and agreed (see original thread) we should fix what we can before filing the FAC. Here're remaining points:

1. Death/Birth - sources say late or Autumn 1740, no exact date Birth - 1640, no exact date, some say Virginia, some say England -- we need to explain the discrepancies/lack of info
2. Carol's house - replace as a ref, move to ext links
3. book is ISBN 9781596291881 here, incorporate what it says
4. any other issues we ID beforehand nothing reported so far
5. before fac, put refs in numerical order as copyediting messes this up, I don't know if this is a fac issue but it's a pet peeve of mine.

Naturally, all are welcome to comment, edit, and help improve... — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

WOW! It got 7.6k views while at DYK, my third highest ever, and qualifies for DYK Stats — Rlevse • Talk • 02:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on the DYK views! NW (Talk) 03:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC filed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grace Sherwood/archive1 — Rlevse • Talk • 15:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• We need to do something with the opening of the Final trial section, because this just doesn't work: "Reluctance on the part of the local residents made it difficult to form a jury. The authorities issued two such orders." The sentences need to be merged in some way; two such orders for what? Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

For the jury to appear. They could get people to be part of the jury when they first ordered one, so they had to try again, while successful, they still had trouble doing so. Does this help? Can you do something with that? I really appreciate all this help. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Great! I wasn't sure what that meant either even after checking the source, and got sidetracked before I could ask. If Malleus doesn't get to this I could later. I don't want to jump in on something he/she is already working on.(olive (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC))

Please feel free to fix this olive, I'm just popping in and out. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The best way to fix an olive is to add gin and vermouth. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

ROFL — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I could go a long way with that but will resist.:o)(olive (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC))

Fascinating article, by the way! Nice work! I'm too busy to do a thorough review, but VERY interesting. Montanabw^(talk) 03:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A little motivational talk, just in case you need one. I've been through FAC a couple or three times, and I think you develop a sense for which way the wind's blowing after a while. I'm pretty sure that if you toughen up your sourcing with the two you've been sent you'll have an FA on your hands. Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've already started reading those two sources and they have some new stuff and mostly amplify and validate what is already in the article. When I'm done reading (hopefully tonight) I'll start modifying the article. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've got your first support, always a watershed. Something that's almost certain to come up though is the number of inline citations you've got after some sentences; I counted eight after one. You don't need to cite everyone who's ever said something, just pick one or two reliable sources. If you think it's necessary to expand on it, then put it in a footnote. Malleus Fatuorum 18:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea, the first support is a watershed. I've thought of the number of refs too. I'll give it a look in a few. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You have to try and remember that you're telling a story, and that inline citations get in the way of that. We need to have them, but we also need them to cause as little disruption as possible to the narrative flow. But you aleady knew that anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the award

Hi! Very thoughfull and I greatly appreciate your kind gesture. -- N.V.V. Char ^Talk . 03:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lawrence E. Roberts

TheDYKUpdateBot 18:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A little recognition

		Wikipedia Motivation Award
		I am sure that you receive many of these awards, but still it's my way of recognizing your endless efforts in DYK and your great help to many editors to go to the main page of Wikipedia so that the world can know more about their efforts. Please accept my personal gratitude for what you have done in Wikipedia. It is excellent to have people like yourself around. Sulmues (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Becoming an Arbitration Clerk

I am interested in becoming an Arbitration clerk sometime in the future, if you have any suggestions or advice regarding specific things I could do, or get involved in that would aid in the process, that would be wonderful. Thank you Ronk01 talk 02:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Contact one of active clerks, such as Doug or Amory at Wikipedia:ARBCLERK — Rlevse • Talk • 02:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Appreciation

		The Special Barnstar
		For your great motivational efforts, I award you this barnstar. LAAFan 03:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the award. It is on my userpage. Cheers.--LAAFan 03:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 11:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Clear-up

Listen, I just want to say that I think you've got the wrong impression of me over the last day or so. I'm not trying to be argumentative or awkward. I'm just not a fan of this edit. There is a difference between discussion and straight out arguing. I'm doing the former. I feel that there is no need for your request as the hook has nothing to do with the record table. As I've sourced the claims made in the hook, that is adequate.

Now I'm not too happy with the edit. Where has this claim about GAs come from? I just feel as though I'm being forced into some sort of revolution in the pages regarding the sport I oversee. It seems crazy to add refs when there is an external link just an inch below that was created for the very purpose of making it clear. Anyway, I just want you to know that I'm trying my best. I'm clearly not as experienced in DYKs, but I'd like it if you weren't so harsh. Thank you. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to be less defensive. People are simply trying to make your articles better. Being content with a low standard of articles when it's simple to fix is not the way to go. You're spending more time fighting about this than it'd take to fix it. External links are not refs, despite your protestations to the contrary. Do yourself a favor and make the sherdog ext link a ref and put ref links in the table rows. See List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) for an example of how. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I do that sourcing method for one, there's another 3000 to fix too. It's hard not to be "defensive" when my created articles are said to be "low standard" (which they clearly aren't) and I'm accused of having problems with GA; a baseless, unexplained accusation. Like I say, I'm trying to be helpful by coming up with these hook suggestions, so back off and take it easy. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I only used GA as an example. The standards only get higher. For example, DYKs have a higher standard than other articles of similar length. And yes, you are indeed lowering your standard when you keep trying to say an external link is a ref. You're the one that needs to chill. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars!

		The Well-Deserved Multiple Barnstar
		Every day of the year is Rlevse's day! : ) - jc37 21:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow that is really neat, thanks much! — Rlevse • Talk • 21:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome.

I saw the note at Hans Adler's talk page and thought "Is he still doing that?" and decided that someone who does all the things you do should get at least "something" in recognition.

Note that each barnstar applies. (This isn't just some arbitrary gaggle) I almost added the special barnstar too, but I noticed someone just gave you one recently above. (And wanted to add ray of sunshine and the sandwich one, but though they worked in the template, it "looked better" when it was just barnstars. So just imagine you received those as well : )

In any case, I hope that you're having a great day : ) - jc37 08:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello again

Hi again, sorry to be a bother but could you review my DYK nom for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Science Division? Thanks, Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 08:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied to your comment. Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 11:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied again Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 06:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rlevse, so the next time the queues get updated will the hook be placed on one of them, I'm still fairly clueless as to how DYK runs so I apologise if this sounds a bit stupid. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 07:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Once it's in a prep set, it'll rotate into a queue. From the time it's in a prep set it should show in a queue sometime within 36 hours. Once in a queue allow up to another 36h, about 3 days max total from the time it hit a prep set. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks Rlevse! —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for being there to help each time I nudged you. Everytime I ask for your opinion, you're there ready and waiting. Also thanks for putting up with me, the annoying person that I am. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 11:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My screw up

Sorry, I've messed up with previous edits etc. Could you please clean up my mess? Sorry. Paralympiakos (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't edit for awhile. I'll see if I can figure it out. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

AH, it's okay. Your 00:51 was a good edit, then the goofs started. Then my 00:53 fixed it. My 00:54 was good too. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked at an edit difference and edited from that foolishly. That was a reply to the McKenzie hook. Whilst doing that, you moved something to prep, which my screw-up readded. You then seemed to get rid of about 27k's worth of data, which I don't think was my doing. Anyway, once you've finished that, I'd like to briefly discuss last night if that's ok with you (now that the tension has lifted.)

Edit, I see you've figured it out. Cool. Let me know about above if you wish. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'm not looking to incite more arguments here; I think we've had enough run-ins over the last few days. Now...clearly I'm not as experienced as you are with the DYK business. Throughout my article writing period on wikipedia, I've never had anyone question the external-links-as-a-source business, as it's the "done thing" for the sport on this website. I've grown up on the site, so to speak, with that practice as common ground and I've never really questioned it. Coming here was a bit of a culture shock and that is what has caused some of the conflict here recently. For that, I apologise and just say that from here on out, I'll be adapting your suggestions into my future created articles. I can see arguments for that method and arguments against, but I've learned that it's best to avoid said arguments and just adapt it for the greater good.

I'd also like to address last night. As you well know, I wasn't happy with the conduct of Yoninah and a couple of other people. However, now that things have calmed, I won't be probing it any further. I'm just leaving it dead for everyone's sake. I still think I had a half-decent argument for removing the inciteful comments, but I can see how it would tick people off. Therefore, I will say that I won't be doing that again from here on out. Causing trouble/"FORUMSHOP" or whatever that rule was, was certainly not my intention and I've come across many who agree that comments that don't help the growth/discussion etc of something are best off removed for the sake of preventing arguments. That was my rationale then, but I won't be removing it again.

I guess what I want to achieve here is a fresh start, so to speak, as the last few days have been troubling and frustrating. If I've caused you problems (I'm guessing generally I have for a few days now), then I'm sorry and I hope this can be put behind us. As I say, I'm a newcomer to DYK and I'm learning the citing side of it all over again. At this point, I realise I'm rambling, so I'll wrap it up, but if we could start afresh, that would be appreciated. Thank you. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A fresh start is no problem. There are lots of cliques/users/topics on wiki that do things that don't jive with standard policy and when they encounter parts of wiki like DYK/GA/FA/FL,etc these sorts of things happen. These standards exist to improve the quality of the articles and hence the encyclopedia. I tried to tell you why external links aren't considered refs but you wouldn't listen. Then some other things happened and you got really frustrated and we all know the rest of the story. So let's just move forward from here. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. I have a small request if you'd be happy to oblige. In queue 1, my Aaron Wilkinson hook is close to going live (within a few hours). I was wondering if you could make a minor alteration to it? What I'd like changing is "Aaron Wilkinson's" to "The Ultimate Fighter: Team GSP vs. Team Koscheck competitor Aaron Wilkinson's" - that is, if you think it still has the same readability. I just think that with that added part being a current TV show, it would help pull in more views, as otherwise people may not know who he is. Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

For some reason that reads odd to me. Suggest leaving it as is. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, at my suggestion, Paralympiakos has posted this request at WT:DYK, where others have also expressed some reluctance towards this suggested change. EdChem (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Madonna of humility

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

no problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Prep4

Hey, Rlevse, saw that you're doing prep4. Should Zoë Baird be linked in the Nannygate hook? Also, there's an extra full stop in that hook before the question mark. Regards, Strange Passerby (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the PERIOD ;-) Why link Zoe when Nannygate is already linked? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, just reading the hook, I've got no idea who Baird is. But if it's a case of not wanting to overlink, and those like me who want to know who she is should click for the Nannygate article, fair enough. And thanks for fixing said punctuation mark. ;) Strange Passerby (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I read your question wrong, will link - sorry. And I bet you say whilst instead of while don't you ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 19:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK September 8

Hi. Could you pls reinstate Thomas Lainson etc to the suggestions page ... I have been edit-conflicted while adding a response which should cover all points. (Have just got home after being away for 2 days, hence have only just seen the comments.) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so promptly. My responses/changes are pasted back in. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Restorations

Would you mind restoring the full histories of the pages User:CWii and User talk:CWii and then inserting them into Category:Blocked historical users please, just in case the user in question returns in the future? -- 92.19.22.193 (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That was deleted over a year ago. What has come up to change things? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

He can be considered a historical (and one-time trusted) user, with over 20000 edits made since the start of 2007. There are other people with similar statistics, but so far the page histories for their respective pages has remained intact. Let's go into some of these cases:

• MC10 and ActivExpression recently got caught up in a mistaken identity case involving the abusive sockmaster Madden NFL 21 and his puppets, but their pages' histories have not been deleted.
• Isis was the first sysop to be banned. Most of her talk page history was recently deleted because of a faulty redirect to a deleted image but was eventually partly-resurrected and turned into a redirect to her userpage, which is the norm per WP:BAN.
• Plenty of deceased users still have their page and talk histories intact, despite having their accounts blocked as standard procedures.

So as such, User:CWii and User talk:CWii should NOT have been deleted by User:Tanthalas39 in the first place, unless it involved a right to vanish. So, may those pages be restored please? -- 92.19.22.193 (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not familiar with this user. You should ask the deleting admin first. You're quite knowledgeable for an IP. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rlevse. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 03:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you :) Alpha Quadrant (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Your day

Thanks very much! A little unexpected. Hope you enjoyed Sherlock Holmes Baffled - it must have been one of the shortest FAs ever! Bob talk 00:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

DYKs

Thanks for all your hard work on the DYKs. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion log. Need help

Hi, Rlevse. Please kindly advise how I can find my stub articles content Mokshan numerals and User:Numulunj pilgae/Mokshan script after deletion. Cannot find right path in deletion log ( Thank you in advance.--Numulunj pilgae 12:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numulunj pilgae (talk • contribs)

User:Numulunj pilgae/Mokshan script was delted in August after an MFD. Mokshan numerals was not deleted, it was moved to:Prehistoric numerals. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Rlevse, thank you, how can I find Mokshan script stub? Thank you in advance--Numulunj pilgae 15:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numulunj pilgae (talk • contribs)

My day

Thanks for the star. i will continue to try to live up to the descriptive "awesome", though some days i dont feel it so much. This is my first star, not to proud to say i was hoping i would get one (and i know i could award one to myself, with no shame, but being noticed by others is a very human desire). You and your project are awesome, and this simple act hopefully helps build the sense of community that can keep us from the tragedy of the commons.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad to recognize deserving people. And yes, wiki can be very frustrating at times. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My Day!

Oh wow, that really was unexpected! Many thanks, it's really brightened my day - well, MY day :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

sock block

I noticed you blocked User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? for being a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Otto4711. I don't have much experience with sockpuppet investigations, but the only SPI page I can find for Otto4711 is from 2009 (here), and it doesn't mention User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? at all. This is almost certainly my own inability to navigate this part of Wikipedia. Can you point me to the place(s) which would show the history of the situation which led to Cow's block? Thanks. SnottyWong ^converse 14:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to have an SPI page to make a sock block. Not only is this confirmed by CU evidence, but the onwiki evidence alone is very solid: they edit each others user pages/sigs, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I'm not trying to call your judgement into doubt, just trying to understand this better. I found only one example of Cow editing Otto's user page, a minor edit to fix a link. Otto never edited Cow's user page. They have, however, edited many of the same articles. Is there any page on Wikipedia that has a discussion of Otto's and/or Cow's wrongdoings (i.e. violations of WP:ILLEGIT) which led to this indef block, and was a CU actually done in this case? SnottyWong ^yak 14:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I did the CU myself, also see this, where Otto switch's Cow's sig to his, and this, which is far beyond chance level, plus the CU match — Rlevse • Talk • 14:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK approval Question

Hi Rlevse... I would like to ask you about this edit in which you moved the hook for criminal black man from T:TDYK to prep. Firstly, I see no indication that the nomination was actually checked - certainly, I did not check / approve it - so I am hoping that you did. Secondly, you recently responded to my question at Wikipedia talk:DYK#Increasing size of backload indicating that hooks should be combined "unless there's a really compelling reason not to". Well, I suggested the hooks be combined in the nomination you moved, and never saw any comments from anyone except the nominator (who was opposed). The nomination T:TDYK#The Color of Crime (from the same editor) proposes the hook:

• ... that in The Color of Crime, Katheryn Russell-Brown writes that crime and young black men have become synonymous in the American mind, giving rise to the "criminal black man" stereotype?

This, it seems to me, is ideally set up for a two-article hook. Would you please explain why you chose not to act on my suggestion - I don't understand. Also, did you check the nomination that you moved to prep? Thanks for explaining. EdChem (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

When I do that I do check them myself, assuming that people recognize that doing so shows I checked it. Guess I should put an approval stamp in there. The only person objecting to the multi was the nominator/author of the one I moved. If you want to combine them, feel free. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you do a check in such cases, it's useful to know for the future. As for combining them, I don't want to upset the nominator. I was one of those who opposed his DYK of Jewish lawyer, so his opposition gave me pause. I feel that if no one else thought my suggestion was even worth a response, then it must not have been worth much; I just don't understand why it was considered poor by everyone. EdChem (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your idea was not poor, it was good, but a) I didn't want to upset the guy and 2) at the time I couldn't could up with a multi, and it'd only save one hook slot, so I called it a draw. Now Tony's were definitely worth multi-ing. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I can follow that rationale. EdChem (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser Please

Could I get a checkuser on accounts User:Wiki Historian N OH (main account) and User:238N158 (sock), please? On behavior alone, they are close and the DUCKs are a-quackin'. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Need to give me evidence, like incriminating diffs are always good. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry...both users are interested in Economy of Ohio and Marysville, Ohio. Diffs by 238N158: 1, 2. Diffs by Wiki Historian N OH: 1, 2. Granted anyone could be interested in these subjects, but these are the two pages that Wiki Historian N OH hit the most under his account. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated on technical evidence, but I can see the concern. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will let this one go. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

MONGO's day

I'm not sure that an editor who exhibits an abrasive discussion style such as MONGO's should be recognized as an awesome Wikipedian. Rather than helping to resolve differences in discussions in a contructive way, his comments often add fuel to the fire and unnecessarily antagonize other editors.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but not everyone agrees with you. I take nominations if you have them. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Politely disagree. He's a magnificent example of devotion in keeping persistent POV-pushers from having their way inserting nonsense into articles, particularly the 9/11 conspiracy garbage, and besides this he's written a lot of wonderful stuff on places in the upper Rockies. I also disagree that his style is abrasive -- it's positively friendly compared to some of the sockpuppeteers and others he's tangled with over the years. Approach him respectfully and he will treat you respectfully. Try to sneak crap into an article and he'll tell you it's crap. Antandrus (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

When one's own day comes, one may create revolution. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

MONGO could simply state that certain changes to these articles are not supported by Wikipedia policies and will thus not be accepted. Instead, he is making fun of other editors' personal beliefs. This sends the message that Wikipedia would not be guided by policy, but by some kind of enforced consensus. In effect, he uses the talk page as a soap box for his opinion (which happens to be the majority opinion). This approach does not help constructive editors to understand our policies, and rather incites non-constructive editors to engage into debates that are not relevant from a policy viewpoint.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you guys discuss this with MONGO on his talk page? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I am quite sure that MONGO is aware of what he is doing, and I have no intention to spend time discussing this with MONGO (as I don't enjoy reading abrasive comments).  Cs32en Talk to me  02:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It took this long for MONGO to get his own day? Seriously, if anything's wrong here, it's just that it took this long. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought I'd already given him one. On a related point, there are lots of deserving people on wiki and I simply am not aware of all of them. I still come across people I never heard of who started well before I did. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Wasn't really meant as a criticism, anyway (note the "if anything's wrong", implying that actually, nothing might be wrong at all). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en - even if an editor is unduly abrasive (and I don't believe MONGO is), an award like this is still a good idea. Nothing takes the edge off like feeling appreciated. Someone who feels appreciated is likely to be nicer to other people. Guettarda (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse...coming here to simply say thank you...hope your day, month and years are always good ones.--MONGO 04:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

i wuld like my own day

becos i am a very good editor. i fight all the vandals and tag things for speedy deletions. i use twinkle and i stay up all night fighting the vandals. thx.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You only have two weeks of edits, that's not near long enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

WUT!!!!!!!!!!!! i was just kidding anyway :-D LOLOLOLOL.--Bad edits r dumb (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

PJ Haseldine

In case you're interested, I'd like to draw your attention to the following socket puppet investigation. Thanks. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Francis Land House

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

As a Virginia Beach native & resident, I was happy to read about the FLH on wikipedia.

Thanks again

V. Joe (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding AFD

Hi, I think you should reconsider your !vote in the AFD on The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism, following recent rename and content changes in the article. Marokwitz (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:3PO

• User_talk:Yeti_Hunter#Alex_Frayne

I'm hesitant (though it does look pretty much like this is self promotion), so I'd like you to take a look if you wouldn't mind. - jc37 09:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no thread named that there. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. It's now on my talk page. - jc37 17:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bill McKown

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

er

Wow. What have I done to deserve my own day? Thanks. Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

Hmmm looks like Oct 31 might be Rlevse's day. Treat. Victuallers (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For the hard work that you've put into maintaining the standards of Portal:Scouting, it is a pleasure to award a trinket of congratulations. BencherliteTalk 13:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm conducting a mini-sweep of the oldest Featured Portals, to see which have been kept up-to-date and which have been left to rot by their creators/WikiProjects. The Scouting portal is very impressively maintained, and from the edit history you would appear to be the main person responsible for this. Well done! Bencherlite^Talk 13:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Why much thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

25 Creation and Expansion Medal

		The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Congrats! NW (Talk) 00:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

YIPPEE!!!! — Rlevse • Talk •

Proposed deletion of Bill McKown

The article Bill McKown has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not a notable person

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwman84 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter

We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. TonyTheTiger (submissions) leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by Sasata (submissions) with 1175 points. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)