User talk:Rlevse: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Rlevse (talk | contribs)
archive
Rlevse (talk | contribs)
Line 170: Line 170:
:::::: Wikipedia is not a forum. Try better to show arguments for your topic ban hurt. If you have anything to say about you're infringement, do it. --[[User:Olahus|Olahus]] ([[User talk:Olahus|talk]]) 13:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::: Wikipedia is not a forum. Try better to show arguments for your topic ban hurt. If you have anything to say about you're infringement, do it. --[[User:Olahus|Olahus]] ([[User talk:Olahus|talk]]) 13:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
::will get to this later today.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 12:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
::will get to this later today.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 12:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Xasha most definitely violated the topic ban. One week block for Xasha. As to whether Olahus and Daniel1918 are socks or meats, I do not see enough evidence to prove that to a blocking level. But, I think it is possible they are socks or meats. That situation should be watched by interested parties.<span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


== SUL account Times ==
== SUL account Times ==

Revision as of 20:50, 14 August 2008

MY TALK PAGE



User:Rlevse User talk:Rlevse User:Rlevse/playground User:Rlevse/awards User:Rlevse/files Special:Emailuser/Rlevse Special:Contributions/Rlevse User:Rlevse/images User:Rlevse/Notebook User:Rlevse/sandbox User:Rlevse/Todo User:Rlevse/Tools
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.


More trouble with User:Moldopodo

Hi. You asked me to let you know if Moldopodo was continuing his earlier disruption after his one-month block expired. Well, I think that time has come, as he's begun moving and messing with pages again, in violation of consensus. I'm referring to Moldova (disambiguation)‎, Principality of Moldavia‎ and in particular Moldavia‎. For the last page, he made a move request in June - no consensus to move. He made the same request on August 3; that closed with no consensus yesterday, but he went ahead and implemented the move anyway today.

And, might I add, he's still filing frivolous ANI reports. Biruitorul Talk 19:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the history of Principality of Moldavia, he alleges 'move per consensus', where is the talk the move if any? Same for the dab page.?? And who put those bogus protect tags on the page? RlevseTalk 20:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The protection tags are old but never got removed. The "consensus" he cites is here, but in fact that debate closed without consensus. Biruitorul Talk 21:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, it was a multiple request. RlevseTalk 21:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More trouble with User:Biruitorul

Hi. Please see how the aforementioned user violates the reached consensus that the article Moldavia is about geographical region (see the talk page at the requested move section). User Biruitorul continues his disruptive contribution being unpunished till now, also denying anything that pertains to Moldova, its nation, culture, history, people, language. (see the talk page for Moldavian language). I wonder when will be the Digwuren arbitration enforcement applied to User Biruitorul by you?--Moldopodotalk 21:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldopodo, since your one month block expired, you have falsely claimed consensus here, here (both today), filed and another friviolous ANI report, filed Talk:Moldavia#Requested_move_1 and Talk:Moldavia#Requested_move, both of which were no consensus to move the articles which you chose to ignore. You've made several false statements, disrupt the encyclopedia, ignore consensus, and appear to only push your own POV. You leave me with no choice but to indef block you on standard wiki principles and policies. Last time I did this and changed to one month to give you another chance but you've clearly shown you are not here to be productive in building the encyclopedia. I'm listing this at the Digwuren case logs too since there is so much overlap therewith. RlevseTalk 21:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, Moldopodo, I will when someone provides evidence instead of making wild unproven claims. RlevseTalk 22:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the notification about this case. Looks like you made the right decision. Given the long history of disruption here, there was probably not much else that could be done. Good call. Fut.Perf. 11:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you FP. RlevseTalk 11:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I orphaned the image because I only now, on re-reading the IfD, became fully aware that those straightforward replacements existed, so I drew the obvious editorial consequence. I would have done the same earlier, during the IfD, if I had been able to open Calliopejen's links. Now, could I please have your personal opinion on whether Image:GranadaBoyScoutMemorialParade4.gif or Image:ManzanarBoyScoutMemorialParade4.gif or this of this could serve the same encyclopedic purpose on Granada War Relocation Center as Image:GranadaBoyScoutBand.jpg? Fut.Perf. 14:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Personally, I like this one best. Just uploaded it from [1]. Fut.Perf. 15:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a slightly different note, shouldn't these be interned scouts, not interred scouts? Hopefully, some might still be alive... :-P Fut.Perf. 17:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the cat name. I've put in a fix with a bot on Commons. The Manzanar photo is no good for the Granada article as it's taken at a different camp. I don't want to rehash the debate again, but I still think, as others noted, the image Image:GranadaBoyScoutBand.jpg is probably PD. If it's not, it's still a very unique photo: WWII era camps in America, interned Scouts, band, non-Japanese adult, faces are up close and you can see them well, all under a US flag, etc. This makes it useable to me, but I know you don't agree, and that's fine. Of the others, I like this one the best and since it's also a McClellan photo who worked for the gov, it's also PD so I'll go upload it. RlevseTalk 17:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's here now: Image:GranadaBoyScoutFlagRaising.jpg RlevseTalk 17:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, great. Sorry about the mistake with the Manzanar one, but the others are correct, right? As S. Dean Jameson has also agreed to using one of those, can we tell Peripitus we've solved the dispute? Under these conditions, the old image would end up legitimately orphaned. Fut.Perf. 18:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the others are correct. If SDean and Peripitus work something out, that's okay with me. Pls make sure their agreement is onwiki and if it's somewhere other than Peripitus' page, pls point me to it. RlevseTalk 18:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the, seemingly appropriate, change of image in the article to a free one, perhaps we have a resolution. Original can be tagged unused-fair use and non-controversially deleted in a week, via the normal process? Peripitus (Talk) 21:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I've saved the image and info, like I always do in these cases, just in case ;-) Can you make a call and close this one too: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_July_31#Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.png? RlevseTalk 21:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm - I'll look at that one later tonight (unless someone closes it first) - Peripitus (Talk) 07:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I had some Rungius (I'm pretty sure it wasn't original though) in my house growing up, so I wanted to see it reach DYK. Cheers, Oreo Priest talk 21:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sample of "critical reception" section for film

The article for On Golden Pond includes a section called "Critical reception". While the play seemed to have received broader positive response, the article for the film does an interesting job in providing a balance of positive, negative and mixed reviews for the film, and may serve well as a sample in expanding the similar section in Hearts and Minds. I will certainly acknowledge that Hearts and Minds is far more challenging in that it has garnered critical reviews that tend to treat it either as a masterpiece in political documentary film making or as a hatchet job anti-Vietnam War propaganda film. In many ways it truly is both, not unlike Farenheit 9/11 and the current war in Iraq. It is no simple task to provide a balanced, neutrally-worded summary of the reviews of this film. I had tried to think of an approach to write a WP:NPOV-compliant description of reviews of the film months ago, but gave up several times when I failed to get past an opening sentence that would have read something like "Hearts and Minds has attracted extensive critical attention, almost all of it either glowingly positive or damningly negative, but rarely anything in between." I think the On Golden Pond (1981 film) may be a useful model (despite its dissimilarities) in crafting a similar section for Hearts and Minds. Alansohn (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support both sides of opinions being represented in the review section. RlevseTalk 01:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buscema

I'm not too clear on the situation - I was waiting for the ArbCom clarification response and I see it's been archived - and this ban - what exactly happened, there?

--Scott Free (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed arbcom about the case status, what my thoughts were on the clarification and AE case, and they did not object. RlevseTalk 01:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for me to see a copy of this correspondence? --Scott Free (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found it yet, but I assure you all it said was, basically, that if they had no more input on the clarification, I was willing to close it and intended to reinstitute the bans if they didn't object.RlevseTalk 01:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that some of my questions weren't addressed and I still had a few things that needed clarifying - it looks like Anthony, who had put the request on hold, had concurred that there were still a few valid procedurial questions that needed to be cleared up. I would like to know more about this e-mail system. Who receives the e-mail, and how many arbitrators replied?

--Scott Free (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you contact them directly, via their own email or the arb email list: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org, or their talk pages. The path at the clarification seemed pretty clear to me though. RlevseTalk 02:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the following - 'Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one.'

It might have been a good idea to leave the explanatory note that you've given on the archived request. If I'm to make further inquiry to arbitration, I would like to have a copy of your correspondence with them, so that I'm aware of all the facts before proceeding. Nothing personal against you, it's just that I'm not all that familiar with the intricacies of the adminstrative procedures and the niceties of certain procedurial policies and guidelines - so although things appear clear to you, they don't appear quite so to me.

--Scott Free (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an arb clerk, so I can remove requests, see Wikipedia:AC/C#Current_Clerks. Just ask them what questions you have remaining.RlevseTalk 09:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks - I'm still not comfortable with the notion that there has been off-wiki discussion of the request that I'm apparently not privy to. I think I'll just make another clarification request for the other questions I have. I'm not blaming you for this, I can see that your e-mail was aimed at trying to help move things along, probably just the dual role of being arbitration clerk and arbitration enforcement administrator on the same case threw me off a little.

--Scott Free (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably get a faster response if you use my suggested route.RlevseTalk 11:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buscema 2

Hi, and thank you for volunteering to clerk this case. I had a question about my banning. Arbitrators jpgordon∇∆∇∆ and Sam Blacketer wrote at the clarification page that the the arb decision "require[d] that after your topic ban expired, both of you 'respect consensus developed in the interim,'" and to "respect the basic structure, so simply restoring the same paragraphs that were previously being objected to would not be respecting the structure but reverting to the previous structure. The external link to Nationmaster is clearly inappropriate."

None of my edits changed the consensus-developed version. Scott Free added material that did, including the Nationmaster link referenced above, which I along with other editors removed. But I didn't add anything that changed the consensus version.

Based on that, I'm wondering if there is an appeal process. Thank you for any information. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that may be true, but you were uncivil to Scott Free and you two are still going at each other and that's what I based my call on. Now when you two learn to get along and cooperate in a productive manner, I may entertain a change in my opinion. RlevseTalk 22:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understood — and thank you for the quick response! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Extremely sorry, I should have informed you before removing it from the article. However it was just for hours and I was actually consulting some other editors regarding the issue with images. It is only because of the objection of one editor in the FA nom. Thank for your comment in the FA nom, I have added the image back. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I understand. RlevseTalk 11:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Count

hey Rlevse, Just a minor request, when you are updating the tally on RfA's it is a common practice to put the count in the edit summary. That way, people who have the RfA watch listed will know what the latest tally is.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I'm lazy about that ;-) RlevseTalk 21:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First you refuse my request to fail an RfA candidate with 98% support... now this!!!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? RlevseTalk 21:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you noticed that I've been (jokingly) campaigning you to fail a candidate with 98% support to show that RfA isn't a vote... show you independence! ;-) Thus far, you haven't done that... now you are saying that you're too lazy to put people's tally's in the summary box!
Harhar ;-) Actually, no I haven't seen the 98% campaign. RlevseTalk 21:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
here and here---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 21:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the slacker link but not the 98% one. 98% is a pretty strong consensus though ;-) RlevseTalk 21:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ROFLMAO!---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Hanna

Great work on the article so far! I think the article needs an expansion and more reliable references before you bring it to FAC. I'll go digging for some obituaries and send them to you via email. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tks!RlevseTalk 00:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA nom

Hi, can you please comment at the FA nom of the article Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany? There is continuous disagreement over image, your comment will be necessary. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Xasha is hurting the topic ban

In this article he seems to start a new edit war with the user Daniel 1918 concerning a disputed map (see also the talk page of the image). Xasha seemed to ignore his topic ban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Xasha#Topic_ban). More can be seen in the talk page of the disputed map. --Olahus (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey stop that. Daniel1918 (talk · contribs) is clearly one of your meatpuppets, as uninvolved users on Talk:Roma people have observed. He edits only two topics that you're very active on, and he supports your POV (is it just pure chance the fact that he changed that image immediately after you requested its removal?). You have a history of sockpuppeting, so please don't act as you were innocent.Xasha (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Xasha, such defamatory and slanderous accusations against me are on the wrong place here. If you think Daniel1918 am a sock of me, make a checkuser request. Don't try to justify your violation of the topic ban with such a trash. Be honest and admit taht you just violated your topic ban. --Olahus (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you think making legal threats may help you obscure the evidence?Xasha (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Legal threats? That's exactly what you did with me in the last months (remember the discussion on the talk page of Tariqabijotu?). But hey, return to the discussion. You hurt you topic ban. Why didn't you discuss the issue in the talk page of the article before you made this unallowed edit? Didn't you notice that the map posted by Daniel 1918 was the one appointed on the consensus in the talk page of the article? Moreover: why didn'y you say nothing in the talk page of the disputed map posted by you? --Olahus (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, "meatpuppet" means the sock is a different person who happens to be in coordination with the sockmaster. The different person can be on a different computer, geographical location or even country, so checkuser will be useless. Meatpuppets are usually caught with the WP:DUCK test. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if 2 users edit the same article, they are automatically meatpuppets? Benacause in this case, Xasha might be the meatpuppet of user Moldopodo in the past. Just compare the edits of both them. --Olahus (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, on Talk:Roma people the user Daniel did participate on different discussions than I did. --Olahus (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, man. Your desperate denial and attempts to blaim others help only reinforce my case.Xasha (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a forum. Try better to show arguments for your topic ban hurt. If you have anything to say about you're infringement, do it. --Olahus (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
will get to this later today.RlevseTalk 12:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xasha most definitely violated the topic ban. One week block for Xasha. As to whether Olahus and Daniel1918 are socks or meats, I do not see enough evidence to prove that to a blocking level. But, I think it is possible they are socks or meats. That situation should be watched by interested parties.RlevseTalk 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUL account Times

Hello Rlevse, I try to switch my current user name into User:Times to complete my global SUL account. I placed a request here but nobody has answered, yet. Are there any restrictions or problems? Thank you for answering. --Times.uk (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done RlevseTalk 12:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt service. --Times (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]