Rlevse

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

 

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

"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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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

• 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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

Rlevse, I saw the action on your talk page today. When I happened to look at ANI just now, I saw this thread. It appears you were not notified and I want to make sure you knew. I'll comment there. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Rlevse, you were the one who redacted part of Donaldio's block-log summary? Well done! -- Noroton (talk) 05:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes I was. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round II, Issue 6 - May 17, 2009   Archive before | Archive after   Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most:   Featured articles   Ceranthor,   Ottava Rima,   Sasata,   Scorpion0422 and   the_ed17 have all had 1 successful featured article nomination.   Featured lists   Rlevse has had 5 successful featured list nominations.   Featured topics   Rlevse has had 1 successful featured topic nomination.   Featured pictures   Durova has had 21 successful featured picture nominations.   Featured sounds   Shoemaker's Holiday has had 2 successful featured sound nominations.   Featured portals   J Milburn has had 1 successful featured portal nomination.   Good topics   ThinkBlue has had 1 successful good topic nomination.   Good articles   Theleftorium has had 8 successful good article nominations.   Did you know? items   Candlewicke has had 33 successful "Did you know?" nominations.   In the news items   Candlewicke has had 25 successful "In the news" nominations. For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. Biggest Jumps This week, the players with the biggest difference between their points last week, and their points this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1   Candlewicke 236 439 257 2   Durova 291 458 167 3   Sasata 800 960 160 4   Scorpion0422 143 273 130 5   Shoemaker's Holiday 455 572 117 LF = Last Week's score, TF = This Week's score, D = Difference between last week and this week's scores This was generated from this diff. From the Judges Only eleven days in this round to go and it's looking very interesting in the Wildcard race. In particular there is an epic struggle for the automation progression spot at the top of Pool C with only two points in it as I type. In other news, congratulations to Durova for her 200th successful featured picture nomination on the English Wikipedia - well done!  GARDEN , iMatthew // talk, and The Helpful One WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 2 total of: 5   Featured articles 14   Featured lists 1   Featured topic 35   Featured pictures 3   Featured sounds 1   Featured portal 1   Good topic 46   Good articles 136   Did you know? items 29   In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals to make a grand total of: 25   Featured articles 46   Featured lists 3   Featured topics 170   Featured pictures 24   Featured sounds 2   Featured portal 3   Good topics 189   Good articles 440   Did you know? items 78   In the news items Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with ten wildcards, will advance to the next round. As of this newsletter, the current pool leaders are: Pool A   Shoemaker's Holiday (572) Pool B   Mitchazenia (223) Pool C   Theleftorium (324) Pool D   Candlewicke (493) Pool E   Durova (458) Pool F   Sasata (960) Current Wildcards   Rlevse (321)   Useight (312)   Wrestlinglover (300)   Paxse (286)   Scorpion0422 (273)   Ottava Rima (248)   ThinkBlue (206)   the_ed17 (169)   Juliancolton (144)   97198 (132) All scores are accurate as of 08:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC) If you don't wish to receive this newsletter in the future, remove your name from this list. If you are not a participant, but would still like to receive this newsletter, feel free to add your name to the list.

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 09:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.Reply

I see that it's ready to close. I broke my computer, which is sent in to be fixed at the moment. Hersfold, the other clerk on the case, still appears to be unavailable, as well. However, I can close the case between my classes at my university's library today. Hopefully, I can get it done by 2:30 PM (Eastern Time Zone). Just giving a heads up that it will be done, and sorry about the wait. Good day, hmwithτ 13:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

NP — Rlevse • Talk • 16:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You've got mail! Ariel♥Gold 15:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, from reading a discussion at User:Donadio's talk page, I see that you removed something from his block log. Although his story and mine are not precisely the same, they are close: During the time when one of my other stalkers was active, I contacted the admin Tiptotey.. or something, I forget how to spell it.. Anyway, I contacted him asking for a block, with a diff as evidence. He had an itchy trigger finger unfortunately, and accidentally blocked me instead. He of course quickly undid his action, but I was wondering if it would be at all possible to do something similar for me, less someone read it wrong or something in the future.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your case is a little different, Tiptoety's entry clearly says it was a mistake and there's nothing offensive other than a mistake being made. In Donadio's case, you can't separate the block entry from the summary without oversighting it. I'll ask for more input though. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

“Greg L is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline.”

Since when have I edit warred on anything related to style? The only edit wars I’ve been part of have all be substance. Even when I was battling on WT:MOSNUM over the IEC prefixes (“mebibyte” v.s. “megabyte”), I wasn’t edit warring on individual articles. Where is the basis for this restriction? Greg L (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Evidence#Greg_L looks like the Manual of Style to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please see several factual objections against your "Findings of Fact" in the Macedonia case, on the PD talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for revising some of your findings. Still, I feel I must request some more clarifications [6]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rlevse, I've also posted a reply with factual objections here and would appreciate if you had some time to read it. Thanks. --Avg (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if you might be able to take a look at this proposal and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the 2 new lists of MOH recipients for the Naval Acadmey and Military Academy. I added them to the template.--Kumioko (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I added them here Template:Medal of Honor recipients--Kumioko (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I needed that. --KP Botany (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply