User talk:Rlevse

——————————————— MY TALK PAGE ———————————————

Home	Talk	About me	Awards	Articles	eMail	Contributions	Images	Notebook	Sandbox	Todo	Toolbox

My Admin Policy: I trust that my fellow admins' actions are done for the good of Wikipedia. So if any of my admin actions are overturned I will not consider such an action to be a "Wheel War", but rather an attempt to improve Wikipedia. If I disagree with your action, I will try to discuss it with you or with the admin community, but I absolve you in advance of any presumption of acting improperly. We should all extend the same benefit of the doubt to our fellow admins, until they repeatedly prove that they are unworthy of such a presumption. For every editor, I try to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and expect the same in return.

Wiki Break

I will be on wiki break for about 46 hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Back, and no talk page posts waiting for me ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I got you something to show appreciation for my day. Hope you enjoy more work to do... Thanks! 02:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

See your talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep it off the template until I have something significant to add. I always liked the supes list because it gave me something to aim for. Eventualist. Now, something new. I'm still building M.B. Stewart, and plan to go back and build many of the superintendent bios to B-class (Thayer really needs love). BusterD (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XV

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 08:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Whee!

Thank you so much!! :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Henry Barry

On May 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Thomas Henry Barry, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:ISCAJournalNov2004.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:ISCAJournalNov2004.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia 2

Thank you for trusting me as a party. I appreciate it. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem on that point, but just so you know, being a party is more a matter of involvement in the issues. Here you admit to prior involvement in the case, that was the key for this particular case. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Image review

In doing an image review for an FLC, the nominator asked me if there was a tutorial or something, that would help them know what to look out for in the images they were using. I couldn't find one, so thought I'd try to help. I've had a go at putting down some of the things I do now. I thought this might also have the potential to be helpful as a PD reviewing resource, so I was wondering if you wanted to put any of your thoughts down too? I understand if you don't want to, but if you don't ask you don't get. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Added a bit, can you add the requested links? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad call

The situation is simple: a user requested to have his rights removed and I removed them. Honestly speaking, I don't care whether this user is sysoped or not and local bureaucrats can overturn steward actions, so, feel free to revert me and resysop the user or you can ask any other steward to undo my action. And please don't say "both your parts". I don't know User:Jennavecia and I have nothing to do with the conflict. In other words, I am not part of a conspiracy against Scarian. Anyway, you are one of the users that I value their opinion and I regret that the first edit by you on my talk page is a complain of one of my actions. --Meno25 (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Spacebirdy was right on this one. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Well thankyou my friend! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

topic ban

why should i be topic banned from baronets and knights ?? Shouldn't this proposal be split into 2 - one for vk and one for me so people can vote seperately? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

For things like items A and B as pointed out by SirFozzie. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean

A) Vintagekits is well known to the Arbitration Committee as an instutituion (if not to the individual members of the Arbitration Committee). He has a long and storied history of.. being problematic in certain areas. Please note, I'm not saying he's not useful to the project in other areas, (he's one of the few users I can think of that have a FA to their credit after a community ban that was later modified).However, British Baronetcies is an area where I think VK cannot help but be disruptive. Some would say his "Two weeks till I bring the pain" type comments is evidence of WP:POINT-y behavior. I'm thinking that at least a limited PERMANENT topic ban, specifically in the area of British nobility is probably a good thing.

B) Kittybrewster is another user who has.... a history in this area. A lot of it mirrors that of Vintagekits, I cannot imagine two more people diametrically opposed in worldview. I do not know if he has a COI regarding baronetcies, considering the rank he holds. He does have a strong POV in these areas (not saying he's wrong or he's right, just that he has one). Combined with the voluminous past history (of which the Troubles ArbCom is not a full record), perhaps a topic ban from the area as well is for the best, encyclopedia wise

If so A is not relevant and re B, would he please provide recent evidence in support? Kittybrewster ☎ 11:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI Giano (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

She probably said that because of statements like this for Vk, so I'm curious why you haven't said anything about Vk's incivility. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If I referred to either of them in that manner I would be blocked immedciately, more than likely it would be you that would do it - and you know it!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not so quick on the trigger Vk, you did make such a statement (see my reply to Giano) but I did not block you. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The two are in no way comparable - chalk and cheese. BHG also got away with calling me a thug. Seems acceptable now. Noted!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Re. Happy Husond's Day!

For Rlevse! Húsönd 15:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Rlevse. Thank you very much for this kind distinction and shiny star. It's always nice to have new messages and realize that it's not somebody yelling at you. :-) And since it's my day... have a slice! Best regards, Húsönd 15:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks! I actually followed your early-close recommendations :D -- Avi (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. Glad someone besides me read them. I got them from Nichalp when I became a crat. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Starry thing

Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

• News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
• Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

IRC

You on IRC at the moment? KnightLago (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

logging in. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree

Rlevse, I'm afraid I have to take great exception to this. SQRT asked two questions that were pure insinuation, implying that some further evidence or further parties might exist, but saying nothing about what or who they might be, making the questions effectively impossible to answer. The questions served no purpose but to insinuate misbehaviour. That is exactly what FPaS called him on. Instead of warning FP of bans from the arb pages, we really should be cleaning up that nightmare of a workshop and removing the matters that that aren't helping the matter. Those are what is truly agitating the situation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Some agree with you and some with me. I got the opinion of two other arbitrators beforehand and they both agreed with me. Even if we all agreed with you, FPAS's response did not help the matter. I'm sorry you disagree here. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, was there a plan of trying to solve this problem sometime soon? It seems right now, the plan is to let the workshop spiral out of control and then bite people who try to call out others on it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We hope to have the PD posted within a week or so if that's what you mean. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's something, thanks for that. I just hope that will actually have workable solutions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

We all do. At least we can all agree on that. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

So, with your high standards about behaviour on arbcom pages, are you going to do something about this continued mud-slinging? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I need your opinion about a problem with editor DreamGuy

Dear sir: I have suffered an incident of offenssive language by user DreamGuy, that seems to have previously engaged in such behaviors (see [1] and [2]). I would like to know your opinion about the best way to further proceed. Thank you in advance, --MaeseLeon (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not very uncivil but I agree "silly" was a bad choice of words. You may try WP:3O. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was more like "pedantic", "ridiculous", accussing me of "tactics" and "bullying", while I was just trying to... mention a classic, existing book in an article. I have sincerely felt insulted and bullied by no reason at all. His last action was erasing my (polite) request for further explanations in his talk page. I have nothing against this editor, actually it is the first time I meet him, but it looks like he has been involved in severely disruptive behavior before in such a degree that he's under a civility restriction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/DreamGuy_2) that he seems to ignore.

I'm unsure on how to proceed from now on when finding someone like him on Wikipedia... must I just forget my editions and abandon in the face of abuse, just to avoid further conflict or "edit warring"? I really don't know how to handle a situation like this, and I really don't feel like continuing a dispute with an abusive individual like this one. --MaeseLeon (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"Ridiculous" as uncalled for too. Amazing you've been editing two years and not had this problem before. Keep your cool, if you blow it's ammo for him to use. Take a break if need be. If you feel someone is sanctionable, report to the appropriate noticeboard, WP:ANI, WP:3Rr, etc. You may want to look at WP:DR too. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't feel like it. If he thinks he's right, and that's tolerable bahavior, I'll let it be. Thank you anyway. --MaeseLeon (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey

You've got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sunholm

I'm a former meatpuppet of this user who wants to make a fresh start now. I'm going to edit independently from him. --Gulsig4 (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

He did contact ArbCom requesting a review of his community ban, but they weren't going to unblock him - they decided to leave it to the community. However, what I can confirm is that an IP address used by him, was an open proxy/zombie computer, and there is a legitimate user on it - he mainly edits mediawiki.org and is a former editor here. I'm aware you're a Checkuser. Please can you unblock the above IP since it's globally blocked anyway? --Gulsig4 (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't give that out. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No way I'm going to unblock an open proxy/zombie. Those are long term blockable. Your friend will have to find an acceptable Internet source to edit from. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for giving out the IP. I suppose if it's globally blocked though.. no point locally blocking, not that I understand global blocks well. What's the general consensus regarding former meatpuppets trying to reform? --Gulsig4 (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop meatpuppeting and edit within policies and you'll be fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, best to mention it on WP:AN, I'm policy-compliant now anyway. I just felt I had to get this off my chest to a checkuser. --Gulsig4 (talk) 11:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

TFA

See Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#June_11. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool but it'll probably lose unless someone figures out more points. The Burnham article lost because they said it only had two points.

Looks like it's doing well so far. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My day

You definitely made it : )

Not sure what I may have done, but thank you. Anytime I receive such positive commendations, they're definitely appreciated : )

And this one is quite special!

Thanks again : ) - jc37 10:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You deserve it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Pssst

I tumbled upon an ArbCom thing, I forget how, but I found some little errors, spelling, grammar, missing words (without which the sentences made no sense), etc. I edited the page to fix them, but I hope that is okay, I know I'm not a clerk or anything, but you know how I am with spelling and grammar and such. I hope nobody will get mad at me for it! Ariel♥Gold 13:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If it's obvious things like that, no one should care. Let me know if they say anything. Thanks for helping Lady Ariel! How you been? I'm ok. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you're back. :) I'm having kind of a rough patch of life lately, but we'll see how things go. ~*Big Ariel Hugs*~ Ariel♥Gold 13:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

How so? Contact me, I'll help. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You've got email, if you can look into that asap. ;) Ariel♥Gold 22:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sick of this wikilawyering

I might have overreacted in this discussion [3] but I think that baseless accusations like this one have to stop if we want to have a honest discussion. Can you please take a look into these accusations of canvasing. What really bothers me is that even after I made it clear that's not "canvasing" and even the guy whose email was made public said that is not canvasing the guy still insist it is. If you deem right to punish me too that's fine, but please take a look into these accusations. Thanks! man with one red shoe 19:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, would you warn man with one red shoe for his continued personal attacks and harassment? I think Taivo's conduct is beyond the policy and shoe' harassment is intolerable.--Caspian blue 19:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

See my final warning on talk evidence and talk workshop pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why I'm being lump togeter in this group? [4] [5]. I'm in the military stationed in Japan, I have never used or being associated with this IP sharing group. I have never engaged or being accused of edit warring or any incivility. On what basis I'm being lump in this group? Bravehartbear (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The diff right after the entry on you is pretty convincing — Rlevse • Talk • 01:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure

Which language to thank you for the unexpected honour. Horosho, terima kasih, dank u, or what, and I had just signed off for a short break too. cheers/sampai nanti/buenas dios (ok I am very busy and very confused - that is for sure) SatuSuro 01:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Those all do quite nicely. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you...

Just wondered if this is anyone we know. Cheers! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia 2 and "nationalists"

I just saw that a party added in his evidence a bit about "the main argument put forward by the Greek nationalist side". I understand that this case tests the nerves of most of us and many already crossed the line or are about to. While I was repeatedly a target, I didn't ask for any help and certainly I didn't ask for anyone to "shut up" or be banned. But this time, I think that something has to be done. The ethnic factions strategy that some parties follow ("bad X nationalists" vs "good others"), is immature ("I don't like the truth/the argument, you're a nationalist"), offensive and counter-productive. I'm asking for the removal of every reference (in the form of a direct insult) to "nationalist X". I would ask the parties to do it by themselves, but I'm positive they wouldn't listen. If you find the time, please do so. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Gracious Thanks

Thank you for your declaration of JodyB day! What a wonderful surprise. I wish I had so many more hours to work here but when I do come by I am thankful for such a nice greeting. I hope you will enjoy a wonderful day yourself. JodyB _talk 00:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Your block of Donadio

I've just been alerted to this block by a message on my user talk page.

I am astonished by this block. It was announced eleven hours after, but less than a normal screenful below, my comment that [Donadio] is here using [the term] not to ridicule but instead to describe ridicule. There's nothing in that to complain about.

Of course, it's imaginable that I'm just some kind of stooge for (or sockpuppet of!) Donadio or that I misread the comment and others read it correctly. But I'd have thought that my message would at least have given somebody with a finger on the block button reason to pause.

Obviously Opinoso and Donadio are in something like a feud. In this context, perhaps there was an additional risk of being misunderstood, perhaps Donadio shouldn't have said this, and perhaps after he did say it it would indeed have been a good idea to ask him to consider how inflammatory it appeared and either to strike it through or to retract it. But a week-long block is a mighty big and crude cluebat.

My brief experience last night (my time) of working with Donadio here (take a look) suggests to me that he is, or can be, a rational, scrupulous and constructive editor. I hope that you consider this, together with the possibility that Donadio's message, however unwisely phrased, meant what I took it to mean. -- Hoary (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at his comments on his talk page, they seem to contradict what you just said (demanding an unblock, etc). Gwen appears to have declined unblock because of that. The mere fact people are reading his post differently tells you it's problematic. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The comments on the talk page do not contradict anything Hoary said. Peter Damian (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I also encountered Donadio recently and anyone can tell that Opinoso and he have an ongoing conflict. Your comment on ANI, however, seems to indicate that you didn't read the entire quoted passage. Donadio was protesting the use of US-like terminology applied to Brazil. He was ridiculing the POV that Brazil should use this terminology as though it were merely a suburb of the US, without its own culture. Please re-read that passage; you may owe Donadio an apology. Celestra (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read it and some agree with your interpretation of it and some with mine. Also see his talk page, both Gwen and Hoary threw in the towel on him. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hoary did not 'throw in the towel'. Hoary agrees the remark was not racist and that you completely misunderstood the context and the situation. Why have you not removed the deeply offensive allegation of racism in his block log? Peter Damian (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

""If you'd stopped there, I'd unblock you right now. As you didn't stop there, I'm not unblocking you." Sounds like throwing in the towel to me. Others do agree with me too. That there is a difference in how it is being read tells you the post is problematic. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I meant, Hoary agrees the post was not racist - and clearly was not racist, to anyone with a grain of sense. On the fact there is a difference in the way it is read, two problems with that (1) that the correct reading requires a grain of sense (2) if you are going to make allegations of racism and leave them on the net for everyone to read, including Donadio's friends or colleagues, that is very serious. Get the log oversighted straight away, please. Peter Damian (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)