Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:58, 9 August 2009

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

Archives

15 Nov 2005 – 28 Feb 2006 • 01 Mar 2006 – 30 Jun 2006 01 Jul 2006 – 30 Sep 2006 • 01 Oct 2006 – 31 Dec 2006 01 Jan 2007 – 31 Mar 2007 • 01 Apr 2007 – 30 Jun 2007 01 Jul 2007 – 30 Sep 2007 • 01 Oct 2007 – 31 Dec 2007 01 Jan 2008 – 31 Mar 2008 • 01 Apr 2008 – 30 Jun 2008 01 Jul 2008 – 30 Sep 2008 • 01 Oct 2008 – 31 Dec 2008 01 Jan 2009 – 31 Mar 2009 • 01 Apr 2009 – 30 Jun 2009 01 Jul 2009 – 30 Sep 2009 • 01 Oct 2009 – 31 Dec 2009

“Dog” The Teddy Bear

Cookie for you!

iMatthew has given you a cookie! 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!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

iMatthew  at 22:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear.

We've butted heads, but I have never been under the impression that you were anything but an enormous asset to ArbCom. Please reconsider kowtowing to the T&P crowd. → ROUX ₪ 23:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What is T&P? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's 'torch and pitchfork crowd' - but I'm not sure where the crowd is? Anywhoo... seems roux hopes Rlev will rejoin arbcom. Privatemusings (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't that group chasing you not too long ago Private? Or was that a different crowd? It gets hard to keep track sometimes. This is about the advisory council idea? A link would be good. I think anything that expedites the onerous Arbcom process and that makes it more transparent is a good thing. I also think a committee to resolve content disptues would be helpful. Mixing behavior and content together as if they're the same thing is needlessly problematic. The Ayn Rand Arbcom was basically over the word "philosopher". Seems like an awful lot of time and drama for something that should be possible to sort out among reasonable adults in the community. It's also a problem that their sanctions are punitive, as that goes against our basic philosophy. Anyway, cheerios! I'm available to serve on Arbcom if you need me and I support capital punishment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(with apologies to R for chatting idly on his talkpage) - no, CoM, when the T&P crowd is after me, it's a community consensus of concerned editors ;-) - couldn't be further from torches and pitchforks (the key point of difference is usually whether or not you agree with them!) - some would suspect that it's the 'reasonable adults' bit of your post which is the false assumption causing the wiki all sorts of problems... but I'm not that cynical ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to volunteer to be in front the constant firing squad and take nothing but crap for trying to do good, go right ahead. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've sent an email to Jimbo offering myself, and two socks, to replace Kirill, Coren, and Rlevse.. we'll see how it goes ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see how it would be a bit thankless. That's how I felt after getting attacked and blocked over a copy-edit on new page patrol. Maybe if it were less bureaucratic and time consuming that would help? You never know, an advisory committee making suggestions might help ease the burden as they could wade through the muck and issue recommendations that would then only need to be decided by the committee? Who knows. Maybe it would be even more of a mess... Anyway, everyone I've come across seems to think you're doing a great job, so I think you should stick with it if you're just temporarily frustrated and feeling under-appreciated. It's unfortunate that those who have nice things to say stay quiet all the time while people like me who enjoy bitching and moaning are always piping up. Personally, I think writing articles is more fun anyway, but there's much less pomp and circumstance. Let me know if I can help on any Southeast Asian cuisine articles. I'm partisan towards Vietnamese food at the moment, but I'd be interested in regional Thai dishes too. I'm just not much on oily peanut sauce (no offense), but I like seafood and the Tom Yum is quite good. Party on Rlevse. Don't let the crazies get to you. Stick with us collegial cooperators. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"If you want to volunteer to be in front the constant firing squad and take nothing but crap for trying to do good, go right ahead." is only part of the problem. People have no idea what it's like being an arb, some think they do, but they don't. Not only is there the visible stuff, there are things like trying to get a majority of the committee to do anything. "everyone I've come across seems to think you're doing a great job" is that really true? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. For example Caspian blue posted on my talk page telling me to redact my earlier comment and jokes because "I highly respect the admin". And I've never seen anything negative written about you here or anywhere else (which makes you highly suspect in my book). :) Anyway, I hope you enjoy your work here whatever decisions and course you choose. But from what I've seen you have broad support, and I can't say I've seen anything you've done that I personally find objectionable. And I stick my nose around quite a bit looking for trouble. I think the Arbcom system needs streamlining, but it's probably a good idea to have competent people serving on it in the meantime. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. Count me into the ones that think that you are doing a good job. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I almost ran, and am glad I didn't. But you still have my confidence - and that's not something I can say for a large part of the Committee right now. I hope you reconsider after a few days' break (we all need it sometimes). Orderinchaos 03:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Grrrrrrrr... Rlevse, not only is it the absolutely wrong thing to do... It isn't even original! Get yer arse back there pronto, and bring the Herring Mop Kid with you!!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

		Thank you...
		...for your work on the Arbitration Committee. I have no question that you always did what you thought was the best when you voted in decisions. That is not a small thing, and I wish more people were willing to do the same. J.delanoyadds 03:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... seems the issue is that it's thankless — well, I'll thank you and I hope you reconsider. Someone's got to fix the fucked-wiki and it isn't the T&P set. Jack Merridew 06:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Back off for a while?

Maybe everyone should leave R alone for a little while. It's pretty obvious he is feeling stressed right now, and the amount of attention on him can't be helping. This whole mess needs to be left alone for a day, and picked back up once everyone is calmed down. iMatthew  at 01:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly suggest a break, it always works for me, even outside of Misplaced Pages. ceranthor 02:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm tired of the crap. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, please, please, just try it. We really can't afford to lose you... or Kirill, for that matter. ceranthor 03:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Jeepers, I leave for one day and this happens. Rlevse, you need to think this over more and reconsider. Cool down and then come back with a new gameplan of what your longterm action will be. MBisanz 03:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c with Matt) I'll leave Rlevse alone, but not without this parting comment:

Dude! What did you think would happen? Were you expecting tea and cake? Did you fail to "be prepared"? We (well, not me, but only due to strategic voting, long story) voted for you as the best available candidate to handle all the crap that comes with the position. You are the cream of the crop when it comes to crap-handling. Please reconsider any notion of resignation - who will handle all this crap, if not our elected representatives?

If your embattlement revolves around your desire to interact and engage with the community, you know what? Scrap that role and just act as a judge. Read and vote on Arb cases, but don't engage with the editorship on specifics. Back off the wider role you yourself thought you would take when you were first elected - but please don't walk away from the Arb role in toto.

neway, please reconsider, we need all hands on board just now. Do what you want until you're ready to do more :) Franamax (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's hard, I know. The crap, mudslinging, and claims of "OMG ABUSE!!11!" and what do you get in return? Eh, not much of anything. Take a break for a while, and if it helps, read over your RfB and RfA: hundreds of people have learned to trust and admire you, and value your work here. Hope you consider your options wisely. –Juliancolton |  06:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for not saying so earlier, but I appreciated and admired your dedicated and effective work with the Committee. Cla68 (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Rlevse, thanks for all that you've done, and I wish you hadn't resigned. In the end though, you should do what you think is best (unless it significantly harms someone else). Good luck. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm taking in all the input and giving thought to major things. Thanks all. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Hey, it's me, Heim. I only just noticed this had happened. My normal account's locked in enforced Wikibreak, so I'm using my legit sock to contact you and say that I regret that it's come to this. I know we disagreed a lot during ArbMac2, but still, I was grateful for your efforts to keep the case moving forward and not get us bogged down. I see even better now what you meant when you wrote on my talk page about why I should run for ArbCom about how it's impossible to please anyone when you're on the committee. I wish you hadn't resigned, still. All the best to you, regardless of where you go from here. Heimstern:Away (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And you...

...deserve a day of your own too. Everything seems hot right now, but if you step back a bit and trust the enduring quality of the work you've done here, you could see that others hold deep respect both your friendly good nature and your uncommon passion for quality. Would wear on a fellow from Krypton, much less a human being. Find your Fortress of Solitude and know the world needs you at your best. BusterD (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, I'm a little late as I see you've made a decision, but I would echo what BusterD said. I have appreciated your tireless work on the project and your (in my view) "pragmatic" approach to matters (but I don't pay much attention to ArbCom). Also, if you did not notice my "thank you" for the "day award" you gave me a few months back, then I wanted to thank you again. It's a very nice gesture and evidence of your commitment to the community to be handing these out to a wide array of wikipedians. Outriggr (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go

Although I would personally prefer if you were to reconsider and delay receiving the watch until at least a bit later. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm thinking a lot of things over. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to see you retire from the committee. Being the selfish creature that I am, I would ask you to reconsider—because you take care of a lot of the community's trash as an arbitrator, which allows the rest of us a relatively peaceful editing career. But, if you don't want to wade through it all any more, then I fully understand (and would thank you for your exemplary service). If you need advice, my e-mail is open; but I'm sure whatever you decide will be for the best. My kindest regards, AGK 12:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks AGK, I really appreciate it. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• You do great work as a crat, and I've been impressed with ArbCom's bravery this year ... although I have to admit I don't keep up with ArbCom stuff. One question: several people (including me) left long rationales at the RfC. Were you offended only by the "ArbCom is crap" people, or was my oppose also partly to blame for your stress? If so, please leave a message on my talk page so we can talk about it. I don't think any harm was done, or could have been done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Very sad to see you step down. Seeing people resign bits left and right is a worrisome trend and I can't keep up with the reasoning behind it all. Enigma 04:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Advisory Council on Project Development/Drini is a brilliant summary of the APCD mess and en wiki in general. Plus the stress of arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I replied on my talk page, and I just added some stuff to balance the first bit. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for my own day, now I have another WikiHoliday to celebrate! Although there are definitely many other users out there that deserve it more than me, I appreciate the recognition. As always, if you ever need help with anything, let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thailand toys

There's a new article on Plan Toys that I thought you might be interested in. The article also mentions Bangplee which is a redlink. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I also started Monkey Buffet Festival in case you're interested or have anything to add. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, never heard of that one. What is your connection to Thailand? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

No particular connection. But an interesting area of the world with some lovely beaches. And I'm partial to cold coconuts. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear fellow Wikipedian, on behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just want to wish you a Happy Bastille Day, whether you are French, Republican or not!  :) Happy Editing! Sincerely, --A Nobody 23:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy Lady Aleena's Day!

LA If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 17:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The final warning

Hi, Rlevse, since Mathsic, WMC, and Abd have been warned for edit warring and disruption, could you please stop Mathsci making personal attacks and baiting on the ArbCom related pages? I don't think Mathsci's such behavior add anything useful for the ArbCom case. If he wants to speak out, he should've added "evidences", not ignoring "advices" by clerks and arbitrators as well as other editors. I've seen that "warning" by ArbCom does not carry with light weight, would you chime in this ongoing disruption by Mathsci? The use was previously outing one editor, and trying to do the same thing.--Caspian blue 01:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The clerks should handle this at this point. I've notified them. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The user is still calling me various outrageous names with denounce of my contribution to Misplaced Pages and according to him, I'm 12 years old.--Caspian blue 02:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, I'm younger again to 8 years old.. This is not an ArbCom thing, but a thing that requires usual "administrative enforcement" to an editor with a history of verbal abuses.--Caspian blue 02:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This disruptive user is trying to WP:BAIT me and should probably be blocked. I have sent emails to other arbcom members about this. I have no idea how old he is annd am still somewhat annoyed that Jehochman asked me to reveal my age. I can be identified very easily by the year and the university of my Ph.D. that I revealed. I object very strongly to Caspian blue's childish harrassment of me which seems to be an overspill of the peanut gallery in the Obama articles. Mathsci (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why any of you answered Jehochman's question, as it was completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Now how about the two of you focus on the issues involved in the arbitration, rather than any peripheral nonsense like who is how old? Risker (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been harassed and attacked by Mathsci on the page, so "justice" should be done on his "childish" and disruptive behaviors. Since Mathsci was already warned for his disruption, this is not a thing that can be ignored. The ad hominen attacks by Mathsci should be deleted of course. --Caspian blue 02:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) As MastCell noticed, that is why I also gave my operating system, favourite colour and # of siblings. I really only know Jehochman as the admin who emailed various editors such as me to coordinate a campaign against Elonka. After that and his subsequent actions it's very hard to put much trust in his opinions. Mathsci (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway it's 4.30 in the morning here in France. Bonne nuit. Mathsci (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with Risker, and would ask Mathsci to avoid comments such as this one lest he find himself blocked. In the interests of due process, I've copied this caution to Mathsci's talk page. The parties to this arbitration case should bear in mind that disruptive comments unlikely to be treated sympathetically. AGK 11:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup participates in the Misplaced Pages:The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout

Hello all, iMatthew here. I just wanted to let you know about "The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout" which starts this Saturday. The goal of the Dramaout is to spend five days working on improving articles and abstaining from any of Misplaced Pages's drama. I don't think that any of you will have a problem focusing on articles for five days, because of course, any work you get done during the Dramaout will count towards your score in the WikiCup. Details are on the page; hope to see you all signing up! :) iMatthew  at 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thank you for making me an Awesome Wikipedian of the Day! I dont know what that entails, so I'll just keep contributing naturally to Misplaced Pages as before. I'm really touched by your gesture. AshLin (talk) 07:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Eagle Scout List

Good morning, I have spend the better part of a day trying to learn how and upload all the proper images to prove the statements to be true

why was my edit removed on the Eagle scout list?

all my images are copywritten, factual and all the statementments are true? Inteligencja (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright does not equal true necesssarily. Copyrighted images can not be on commons. The FL on Eagles needs articles with reliable sources with a refiable ref. Your certificate is reliable but have you established notability for yourself per wiki standards. Since someone has deleted your article I'd say not. How are you notable? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse returns to ArbCom!

Thank god! I know it took a lot of time to make your decision, so lets hope you made the right one! iMatthew  at 22:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

W00t! Thank you for returning to the Arbitration Committee. Remember that the happy Wikipedians are quiet folks, but unhappy Wikipedians make a big fuss. The quiet Wikipedians are grateful for your service to the project, even if they don't say so very often. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Good to have you back! Happy‑melon 23:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Great news. Dr.K. logos 23:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A warm welcome back. AGK 00:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

AWESOME!! :D J.delanoy_adds 04:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back in the barrel. ++Lar: t/c 15:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Great to see. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I know I had very little inspiration into to your return, but I'd like to thank you for listening to the many requests for it, including mine. ceranthor 16:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• If there is any urgent but not imperative matters that accumulated during your recent absence that I can deal with, and other parties are happy for, send them my way. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Welcome back. Shubinator (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for changing your mind! EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• We're all better off with you there, with the possible exception of yourself, who has to deal with the rest of us bozos. I'm not sure I ever could do it, so I am very grateful that someone who has shown some ability in the matter is willing to continue. Thank you for reconsidering. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

if you do not mind...

I'd like to share my views with you because I have strong feelings about the Council, and you have strong feelings about the RfC. Now, I do not remember whether i voted for you, but whether I did or didn't I ouldn't want to see you resign from ArbCom over this. Most active editors understand what a hard job ArbCom is - you should not think people do not appreciate the work you do. I may be wrong, but this is my perception over the current conflict. ArbCom sees that many of the conflicts it has to resolve have deeper and systemic causes rooted in other dynamics at Misplaced Pages. Okay. If ArbCom feels that the organization and mission of ArbCom has to be reformed to make its job both easier and more efective, it should have presented a proposal to the community for a specific reform of ArbCom and the community could have discussed it and voted on it, and, I believe, in good faith and with good will towards ArbCom. But it seems to me that ArbCom did something else - took a first step, even a tine first step, towards investigating and dealing with those deeper systemic problems. This I think was the mistake. Lots of people in the community besides me feel this is ArbCom overstepping its bounds (even if you had encouragement from Jimbo).

An alternative would have been for ArbCom to write a short report on what it thinks these deeper issues are, with a request that the community address them or discuss devising a mechanism to deal with them. OR, individual members of ArbCom, acting as individual editors, not as members of ArbCom, could have done this (use the list-serve or other channels to raise issues about the communtiy.

I have more ideas about how this could have been handled, but I have addressed them at the RfC and RfC talk page and don't want to waste any more of your time.

My intention has been to show you how reasonable people could disagree over how ArbCom handled this sitution, and my point is that members of ArbCom should not take the RfC personally or as an attack on ArbCom. It is a request for comment on one controversial (in the sense that it has never ben done before, has no precedent, was unexpected) act. Some of the comment is critical, some is supportive, but all the comments are focused on the specific act. NOT the actors. Please do not take this as a personal attack. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

At least your post here is calm and rational, as opposed to much of the FUD at the RFC. Drini made an excellent analysis of the situation here: Misplaced Pages:Advisory Council on Project Development/Drini. What do you think? The way the RFC was brought up and the uberreaction by the opponents doomed what in essence was a good idea at improving wikipedia. Yea, it could have used some tweaks, but the basic goal was sound. No you did not vote for me, you came close though. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXV

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round III, Issue 7 - July 18, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with four wildcards, will advance to the next round. The pool leaders are: Pool A Mitchazenia (653) Pool B Ottava Rima (617) Pool C Candlewicke (427) Pool D Theleftorium (673) Wildcard leaders Shoemaker's Holiday (600) Sasata (546) Juliancolton (346) Wrestlinglover (337) For a full guide see Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/History/2009/Full All scores are accurate as of 15:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC). Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Juliancolton (2) Featured lists Scorpion0422 (withdrawn) (6) Featured topics Mitchazenia (1) Featured pictures Shoemaker's Holiday (14) Featured sounds Nobody Featured portals Shoemaker's Holiday (2) Good topics Scorpion0422 (withdrawn) (2) Theleftorium (2) Good articles Theleftorium (13) Mitchazenia (13) Did you know? items Ottava Rima (30) In the news items Candlewicke (26) For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. For Round 2 stats, see Newsletter 18. WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 3 total of: 5 Featured articles 14 Featured lists 1 Featured topics 19 Featured pictures 0 Featured sounds 4 Featured portal 3 Good topic 54 Good articles 85 Did you know? items 26 In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals and the Round 2 totals to make a grand total of: 30 Featured articles 61 Featured lists 4 Featured topics 189 Featured pictures 24 Featured sounds 6 Featured portal 6 Good topics 256 Good articles 532 Did you know? items 108 In the news items Biggest Jumps The difference between each contestant's point total from last week, and their point total from this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Mitchazenia 443 653 210 2 Shoemaker's Holiday 493 600 107 3 Wrestlinglover 248 337 89 4 Juliancolton 261 346 85 5 Candlewicke 380 427 47 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 About two weeks left, now. To those of you in the back, don't give up. There is still enough time to get some more work done. To those of you in the front relaxing... don't. We've seen it happen before, where users in the back will jump ahead in the final weeks and make it though. We'd also like to wave goodbye to Scorpion0422, and thank him for all of his hard work this round even though he knew he needed to withdraw at the end of it. 'weburiedoursecretsinthegarden, iMatthew , and The Helpful One 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 by JCbot (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

Userpage layout

Hey! I'm new to Misplaced Pages (*I can sense that scorn on your face lol) and I wonder, how do you make your userpage table look interesting like that? How do you add color, style font and so forth? If the talk page isn't the best place to discuss this type of stuff, where else? If you can't explain everything, can you at least refer me to a page about it? Thankyou and much appreciated :) --TUSWCB (talk) 08:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Conctact User:Jack Merridew, he's really good at user pages. You do it with wiki code and templates. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --TUSWCB (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sinhalese People page edit war

Two users keep deleting entire passages in the Genetic Studies section claiming that my sources are not verifiable. My sources are the most detailed of the entire genetic studies section and they are studies conducted by the University of Stanford. Need your help to stop the vandalism and edit war. Edwards Scholar (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have locked the article for two weeks but unfortunately you have done it right after wikinpg deleted my sources and passages. He keeps saying they are not revelant when they are because the studies involved sinhalese subjects.Edwards Scholar (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

When I lock something, I lock it as is, without jugding it, unless it's obvious vandalism, BLP vio etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

300 year old painting copyrighted

Rlevse,

Could you comment on ? I think the discussion needs to be wrapped up. By my count the discussion goes 6-2 against considering 300 year old paintings to be copyrighted. You've done something similar on commons regarding File:Benedict Calvert.jpg. It seems to be holding up a Featured Article Candidate Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Charles Carroll the Settler/archive1 which I think is a shame. Any help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal mind run amuck. Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Smallbones (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievably the FAC wp:Featured article candidates/Charles Carroll the Settler/archive1 is still being held up on account of this. Perhaps if you make the same note at common for File:Charles Carroll the Settler.jpg as you did for File:Benedict Calvert.jpg it will help. Smallbones (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Why some think one thing that qualifies for PD-Art is PD and another isn't is beyond me. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Mythdon 3

Could you please close my RfA as "withdrawn by candidate"? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone already closed it. I've made a note on it that you requested it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Abusive new account names

See my block log -- same old, same old. Please act as you think appropriate. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What a cesspool of a sockfarm. CU and OS actions taken. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Help Please - Suspected Sockpuppets of 72.74.195.207

It is persistent vandalism. Please Help. Thank You.

Suspected Sockpuppets of 72.74.195.207

• Special:Contributions/71.184.55.11
• Special:Contributions/71.184.43.212
• Special:Contributions/71.184.46.252
• Special:Contributions/71.184.49.28
• Special:Contributions/71.126.142.44
• Special:Contributions/71.246.120.113
• Special:Contributions/72.74.198.46
• Special:Contributions/72.74.209.246
• Special:Contributions/72.74.218.37
• Special:Contributions/72.74.223.106 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.94.32.40 (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Pls report at WP:ANI or WP:SPI — Rlevse • Talk • 16:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please assist if you can

Hi, Rlevse. We have a bit of a difficult editor at Sri Lanka Armed Forces‎ and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which are both under the SLR restrictions (which he has violated already). I think the situation at the armed forces article is resolved (hopefully), but the problem at the LTTE article is still going. He has been told to discuss without reverting, but doesn't seem to pay much attention to it. He just keeps re-reverting, and we can't do much about it because of the restrictions. It's no use us sitting at the talk page if he doesn't come. What I wanted to ask you is to talk to him about how it's done. I don't think doing it myself will work; I've been involved in this and I don't think he takes much notice of what I say now. Probably my fault, I was a bit harsh with him at the beginning. ≈ Chamal  12:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, sorry if you're too busy for this. I asked you because you're listed at WP:SLR as one of the admins familiar with it. ≈ Chamal  12:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

MentalDimension is clearly not a new user, investigating. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed KnowledgeAndVision = MentalDimension. See their talk pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so that's why MentalDimension was so obstinate. Thanks a lot for your quick response. ≈ Chamal  03:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVI

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round III, Issue 8 - July 26, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Pool leaders In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with four wildcards, will advance to the next round. The pool leaders are: Pool A Mitchazenia (661) Pool B Ottava Rima (659) Pool C Candlewicke (443) Pool D Theleftorium (727) Wildcard leaders Shoemaker's Holiday (638) Sasata (583) Juliancolton (424) Wrestlinglover (383) Durova (370) the_ed17 (266) ThinkBlue (232) Those in italics are not currently in place for the next round, but are very close. For a full guide see Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/History/2009/Full All scores are accurate as of 14:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC). Content Leaders As of this newsletter, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Juliancolton (3) Featured lists Scorpion0422 (withdrawn) (6) Featured topics Mitchazenia (1) Featured pictures Shoemaker's Holiday (14) Featured sounds Shoemaker's Holiday (1) Featured portals Shoemaker's Holiday (2) Good topics Scorpion0422 (withdrawn) (2) Theleftorium (2) Good articles Theleftorium (14) Did you know? items Ottava Rima (31) In the news items Candlewicke (27) For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. For Round 2 stats, see Newsletter 18. WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 3 total of: 5 Featured articles 14 Featured lists 1 Featured topics 21 Featured pictures 1 Featured sounds 4 Featured portal 3 Good topic 61 Good articles 90 Did you know? items 27 In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals and the Round 2 totals to make a grand total of: 30 Featured articles 61 Featured lists 4 Featured topics 191 Featured pictures 25 Featured sounds 6 Featured portal 6 Good topics 263 Good articles 537 Did you know? items 109 In the news items Biggest Jumps The difference between each contestant's point total from last week, and their point total from this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Durova 178 370 192 2 the_ed17 83 226 143 3 Juliancolton 346 424 78 4 Theleftorium 673 727 54 5 Wrestlinglover 337 383 46 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 The round is over in about four days from now. Sit back, watch your nominations being reviewed, and hope for the best. In these four days, you don't have much control over your score. It's what you did prior to now, that's going to pile up your points (or not). We're very, very pleased with this round's results so far, and of course hoping to see some more submitted before the round ends. Not much else to say for now, but you'll all be getting a newsletter on Thursday or Friday between rounds. 'weburiedoursecretsinthegarden, iMatthew , and The Helpful One 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 15:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

R.A.C. Smith

Can you help find the full name for R.A.C. Smith? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What's with the quotes on Barry? They weren't there until today and most people don't want them. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Dear Rlevse, thank you very much. :-)

I'm not a native speaker of English; I never thought that I could be a useful Wikipedian. You've made my day! Best wishes, AdjustShift (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, you are very useful. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

More of same

Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Refresh me. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The abusive account names again -- see my block log. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Staxringold Day

Thanks so much! What did I do to earn the honor/draw your attention? :) Staxringold _talk 01:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Re on your talk. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I actually vaguely remember that (I definitely remember work with the Merit Badge stuff). That's quite a resume you've built since then! Nice to see older editors still around. If I could ask anything of you it would just be to give this FLC a once over and give me any comments/suggestions. The two problems (problems I was expecting) are some so-so quality references for award nominations (since some of the sites don't keep up their nominee lists), and one odd note about a top-40 list of female country music stars that I can't find a solid ref for. Staxringold _talk 01:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes! He was exactly one of the older posters I was thinking of who didn't stay with us. Too bad. Staxringold _talk 02:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

George Motion 4

Hi, would you please consider, provided you haven't already, my proposed motion 4? You seem anxious to get this case over with, that is understandable, but let's not allow the cost of haste to be injustice to one of Misplaced Pages's most venerable and best writers. Thank you,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Re your last phrase, are you saying there's one rule for venerable writers and one for, let's say new writers? And don't forget about the Peter Damian unblock, or should I say wheel war? And he clearly used the two accounts to support each other in discussions, which is a clear SOCK violation. Are you saying that's acceptable for an admin and/or venerable users? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the injustice is this-There was NO motion to desysop, until David Gerard et al began to raise a hoot&haw about it. The AC seemed fully prepared to limit George to a single account and let him off with an admonishment, until his old enemies showed up en masse demanding blood. The AC now is kowtowing to this small, vocal and largely discredited mob's cry for vendetta. Is this the way of the new ArbCom which I have been defending for the past weeks? To determine cases, not on the basis of what is fair and best for the project, but to placate the most vocal and spiteful of cliques and cabals?! Just because they won't be happy with anything less than an indefinite desysopping, doesn't mean you have to be. Show them your backbone!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's hardly the way it went down. Unfortunately, I can't discuss the details at this time. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand much better now why Kirill resigned. So much for the brief experiment with openness...back to the old Star Chamber.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

On both counts, you have no idea what you're talking about. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not a party to all the smoked-filled rooms and backdoor channels, as are you....but you can't talk about those, either, can you. I only have this simple, crazy notion that Misplaced Pages should be governed openly, onsite. I do, however, wish that you had not reneged on your resignation.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Good to know there are always plenty of conspiracy theorists looking for non existent conspiarcies. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, The powers that be on here are far too incompetent to pull off a proper conspiracy. Every time they have tried, it has backfired in an embarrassing way. Good day, sir--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your affirmation. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

If Alison Krauss, List of awards and nominations received by Alison Krauss, and Alison Krauss discography all hit featured status, do you think that's a featured topic? Or do you think the topic would need to be deeper, like all her albums or the other Union Station members? Staxringold _talk 02:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably but to be sure ask at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured topic candidates. I only have one FT so my experience in that is limited. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yup, I did that. Staxringold _talk 02:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello, Rlevse. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your continued complete and total lack of AGF and claiming I was the edit warrior when RAN is the one who edit warred every day and made only one post on the talk page is amazing. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably best if you and I just go our own separate ways. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, my past experiences don't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling, and I'm still dealing with the aftermath of these manufactured problems more than a year later, experiences that have sharply eroded my faith in Misplaced Pages in its entirety. Far too often I see people trying to turn Misplaced Pages into a power play, rather than an effort to build an encyclopedia. Having multiple editors devoting their time to either keeping these quotes in or out is a rather foolish waste of time that does not make the article better by battling. As I've stated earlier, I will never force you or any other editor to put footnotes in quotations and all I ask is that you respect the opinion of those who do want to use them by not removing them. I have no interest on escalating this, again based on past experience, and I can't see why anyone else would want to when the solution of ignoring differing views on rather minor personal editing preferences is the far simpler approach. Alansohn (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You want people to respect your desire to have them in, but what about you and RAN respecting the desire of those who don't want them in? You accuse me of meating you carry out the debate while RAN does the reverts. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I accuse you of editing with a clear WP:COI violation, and I'd be happy to supply mounds of evidence of that, and I have excellent evidence for meatpuppetry at George Thomas Coker, part of a pattern that appears to be happening here. I'd be happy to document your misrepresentations at the "footnoted quotes" Arbcom case and make a strong argument that you abused process there as clerk given a rather clear conflict of interest. If I am somehow representing RAN here, there is absolutely no policy violation, not even one that could be manufactured by an editor with the worst possible grudge. Every step I have taken has been on the talk page and has been an attempt to talk three admins out of a rather foolish edit war. On the other hand, If there is meatpuppetry here with you and JGHowes, and again the case is strong, you have a rather serious policy violation on your part. Again, I have no interest in seeing this escalated, based on unfortunate past experience, and I can't see what you have to gain from taking this up the ladder. The solution of ignoring differing views on rather minor personal editing preferences is the far simpler approach to deal with this issue. Alansohn (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Alansohn, please drop your false accusation of "meatpuppetry". It should be noted that you were restricted for one year because of your disruptive behavior, including personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith (Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Alansohn and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Alansohn restricted). Even after multiple blocks, you haven't learn anything. Now you are accusing me of "edit warring" , even though it is Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) who is engaging in an edit war. I think something has to be done about your disruptive behavior. AdjustShift (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Alansohn, I must insist that you cease repeatedly making this outrageous meatpuppetry slur. The user talk pages I choose to watch are entirely my prerogative, as are the articles I choose to comment upon. My activity on en-wiki is traditionally sparse in the summer time: I am seldom at home and have only a slow dial-up connection and an ancient Windows 95 laptop at my summer vacation house, so I only chime in where something piques my interest. In the case of Talk:Thomas Henry Barry, I contributed on my own volition and entirely of my own choosing, making what I thought was a well-reasoned argument there opposing quoted footnotes. That you passionately disagree I can understand and accept. But what I will never accept is your characterization of my independent contrib as meatpupppetry. That is why I took it to ANI. Please stop doing so, or you will leave me no choice but to seek redress at Arbcom.  JGHowes  18:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, I've erased quotes from Thomas Henry Barry. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) wants to insert quotes, and he has reverted five times.. He is persistently inserting quotes without consensus. Please look after the bio. AdjustShift (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you look at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_Warring_and_WP:OWN_problems_with_User:AdjustShift? Alansohn is making false accusation against me. AdjustShift (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I totally understand the frustration for all here, but I have to recuse from this. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You

You might be interested in the comments at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome#Inappropriate_contact_by_banned_or_current_users. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I may not get to this til tomorrow. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If I haven't responded 24 hrs from now and you still want me to look at it, post here to remind me. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Responded there. I need an answer. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVII

The WikiCup Newsletter

The WikiCup Newsletter Round III, Issue 9 - July 31, 2009 Archive before | Archive after Pool winners In this round of the WikiCup, the top contestant from each pool, along with four wildcards, will advance to the next round. The pool leaders are: Pool A Mitchazenia (757) Pool B Ottava Rima (672) Pool C Candlewicke (489) Pool D Theleftorium (763) Wildcard winners Shoemaker's Holiday (641) Sasata (586) Juliancolton (437) Durova (417) For a full guide of Round 3, see Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/History/2009/Full/Round 3 All scores are accurate as of Round 3. Content Leaders As of the end of Round 3, the following is a list of participants in this round with the most: Featured articles Juliancolton (3) Featured lists Scorpion0422 (withdrawn) (6) Featured topics Mitchazenia (1) Featured pictures Shoemaker's Holiday (14) Featured sounds Shoemaker's Holiday (1) Featured portals Shoemaker's Holiday (2) Good topics Scorpion0422 (withdrawn) (2) Theleftorium (2) Gary King (2) Good articles Theleftorium (14) Did you know? items Ottava Rima (33) In the news items Candlewicke (31) For Round 1 stats, see Newsletter 10. For Round 2 stats, see Newsletter 18. WikiCup At a Glance As of this newsletter, the WikiCup participants have collected a Round 3 final total of: 7 Featured articles 14 Featured lists 1 Featured topics 23 Featured pictures 1 Featured sounds 4 Featured portal 4 Good topic 65 Good articles 97 Did you know? items 31 In the news items This combines with the Round 1 totals and the Round 2 totals to make a grand total of: 32 Featured articles 61 Featured lists 5 Featured topics 193 Featured pictures 25 Featured sounds 6 Featured portal 6 Good topics 267 Good articles 544 Did you know? items 113 In the news items Biggest Jumps The difference between each contestant's point total from last week, and their point total from this week are: Rank User LF TF D 1 Mitchazenia 661 757 96 2 Gary King 170 233 63 3 Durova 370 417 47 4 Candlewicke 443 489 46 5 Theleftorium 727 763 36 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 Right, last newsletter before the next round and it's a congratulations to eight of you lot. Unfortunately we say goodbye to a fair few users along the way but that is the competition. Next round, there will only be one pool which will see the lowest scoring users eliminated two months into the round. Should be good fun! Get your nominations in soon! 'weburiedoursecretsinthegarden, iMatthew , and The Helpful One 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 21:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Hello again

Back after a long absence.

Thanks again for all your help with Harry Truman.

I have set my sights on getting Qur'an up to FA status, and would appreciate any advice you can offer on that score. BYT (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup

Hey R, just noticed you hadn't signed up for next year's WikiCup, here. Is it because you didn't know about it, or you don't plan on signing up? Cheers, iMatthew  at 19:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

didn't know. I didn't do so good this year. Signed up anyway. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

USNA

Thank you for letting me know. As a new user, I have lots to learn. By the way, does my reply here get to you, or do I need to post it on your talk page? I will copy it to your talk page, in case you don't automatically get my reply. Eagle4000 (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You did post it on my talk page. You get a big yellow notice when you get a new post on your talkpage. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

merge histories

Hi brother, recently I've been seeing article histories merged, not just article-b-gets-pasted-into-article-a, but actually where all edit history for both articles is preserved. Do you know what I am talking about? That's pretty cool. How do we do that? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

See User:Rlevse/Tools#History_merges, but you need admin rights to do it. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, shikata ga nai then, unless you can help. Brian just posted 8, it's a sound idea and works the same as US Scouting in Micronesia, Palau... Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tidewater Council IFD

FYI, in case you want to offer your opinion. Misplaced Pages:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_4#File:Tidewater_Council_logo.png. --B (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

eh. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hope I'm not bothering you.

Hi, I hope I'm not bothering you with this, but I would like to nominate user:Hunter Kahn to receive his/her own day. On your userpage there is a link to your email-adress, but I'm unable to send you an e-mail at the moment (computer trouble, working from laptop, yada yada yada, I'm not going to bother you with that as well). Anyhow, I take it you don't want to receive wikipedia day nominations here, but Kahn really deserves his/her own day for his/her contribs, so please don't be mad at me? Thank you.--Music26/11 13:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page or email is fine, not a big deal. I'll add him/her to my long list of future recipients. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Thekohser

I noticed that you issued Thekohser with a final warning over edit summaries. I have just come across this person and noticed that all of today's edits such as this have exactly the same unhelpful edit summary of "I love Misplaced Pages with all my soul, and I pledge allegiance to the ArbCom". Do not know any background to this case but looks like a block may be in order. Keith D (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

FayssalF has already indef'd him. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Something tells me that ain't going to do any good for his board candidacy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Logo is now proposed for deletion.

Hi Randy, you may want to hear of this: . Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC).

Hey Wim! Hmm. I think it's a losing battle, unfortunately. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I said as much in my comment to the deletion proposal. Oh, well.... Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC).

Banning Lotus Blossom (ak the 7th)

For it is I. I do not want to sound rude, but do you actually read the background of edits before blocking people? I'm tired and I really don't have the energy to go into this, but as you can see the 7ths acount is around 3 years old, without ever a warning. The TM article is an espcially difficult one - which would have been obvious if you h read it in detail. My first edit, was an attempt to move forward a stalemate position and the secomd also - the second was also agreed by the very person that I assume raised this an issue!As to Threatening - have you seen how many times i have been "threatened" and indeed as to edit waring, again, have you looked at what users had done the most reversals, alterations and why?

Also, you should also have noticed that the article is already being monitored by two admins and that certain users are already reviewed under COI!

As you can see, it is easy for me to circumnavigate IP blocks yet I have not - and will not edit again, till the end of your block. (As you can see if I had really wanted to sockpuppet, it would have been very easy for me to have done so. LB is not a sockpuppet, but clearley identifed on the Tm page as being the 7ths "alter ego" again, if you had read she was produced as a joke response to the patriarchal, generalized language of certain users ion the page. This was explicit

Can I ask you to review this situation in perhaps a little more detail.

I have left a message on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Will_Beback

As the 7thdr. Perhaps this will help a little.

Namaste Meyouandhim (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if one agrees to the "alt ego" argument, the account was still edit warring, threatening people, and personal attacks. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

AH, and you're the same guy, how sweet ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assessment of the situation. The initial block of LF f/k/a 7th was claimed to be for violation of 3RR, which was absolutely baseless, as she had two reverts, not three, and there was no attempt to use a sockpuppet to avoid the limit. Then, when this got pointed out, the rationale suddenly changes. LF fka/a 7th wasn't edit warring, but implementing the suggestion of an independent, disinterested admin, WillBeback, who got involved in the article and its discussion in order to try to enforce COI rules against editors who refused to abide by them. The charge of threats and personal attacks are nonsense. All the threats and personal attacks have come from the other direction.Fladrif (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

ORLY? What do you call these threats and and these personal attacks? If you have issues with other users, substantiate them with diffs. Also not Shell did the indef's and main user block, not me, and Will agreed there was edit warring. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Who's ORLY? No, those are neither threats nor personal attacks. And, if you want diffs and evidence of other users abusing this article, start | editor refuses to comply with COI and | sockpppet/meatpuppet 76.76.etc.Fladrif (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

GA-review of Black Hawk War

I have begun the GA review of Black Hawk War that you nominated. I have placed the article on hold since its failure to follow WP:LEAD is a problem that could prompt quickfail if not remedied. The lead would need to be expanded to provide a summary of all the relevant information in the article - not just as it does not provide a definition of the term. When the lead is fixed I will begin to dig deeper into the details of the review.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for Assistance

Hi Rlevse, This is a concern about UserName: Fladrif, and the Transcendental Meditation article. I know you currently have some involvement there and have had some recent contact with this user so I am posting my concern here. If this is the wrong procedure or you are the wrong Admin to approach please correct me. The issue is personal attacks despite requests from fellow editors to cease. There are many examples but here are four instances from just one day (August 6th):

• Pay attention and quit crying over versions of the article that have long been superseded. And I might ask, 76.76 etc... what exactly is your connection to MUM and the rest of the TM Org there in beautiful downtown Fairfield from whence you're posting? Single purpose editors. Love 'em.Fladrif (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC) ]
• And, there is plenty of concensus outside the TM Cabal to take a meataxe to this article. Now, aren't you late for a bunnyhopping session? ]
• Who? You, KBob and 76.76 from beautiful downtown Fairfield? That's three. Or maybe two, because I haven't decided whether 76.76 is a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet or both, and I'm not sure whether he/she/it counts at all.m ]
• Oh wait, I forgot Luke. And now BWB. I suppose that uncreated and LFE will weigh in soon to express their horror. I kinda think that all of you put together really only adds up to one vote as far as I;m concerned ]

Thank you for any help you can give.--Kbob (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Warned. He may file counterclaims and if there's evidence for them, will handle accordingly on both sides. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fair. Thanks for your speedy response.--Kbob (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #8

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.

There is a planning discussion taking place here for DC Meetup #8. If you don't wish to receive this message again, please let me know.

--User:Nbahn 04:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd-WMC case

Hi Rlevse. You apparently did not participate when this ArbCom case was requested here nor have you since recused. The page-bans were backed by the community on WP:ANI. User:Heimstern wrote that all he was doing was summarising what had happened when he closed the thread and has written as much here. I think it would be hard to determine how long the page-ban was for. I also don't think that is was "voluntary" as you suggest, since it was immediately contested (see the evidence section of the ArbCom case); nor did Abd indicate anywhere publicly (for example on a noticeboard) what he was doing when apparently he decided it was no longer in place. Surely it is for the community to decide this. If you read the evidence or the workshop more carefully you can dig out the chronology/locations of the page-bans. I mention them here in response to one of Fritzpoll's proposals. I hope this hepls clarify some matters. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if one accepts all that, and as Heimstern confirmed it was for a month that is not for sure clear it's as you state, WMC's block of Abd is way out of line. I agree Abd would have better posted the unban publicly. Thanks for info and I'll look at it, but I think you have to agree WMC is way too involved with Abd to be blocking him, and certainly not in an ongoing arbcase named after the two of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, the whole case is complicated. In exchanges between WMC and Abd on their talk pages the page-ban might have become indefinite. Unfortunately I only retain data like this as a vague memory I haven't said anything for sure because it usually takes 5 or 10 minutes to dig through the page histories to work out what actually what went on. That's probably why Fritzpoll's suggestions on the workshop page are potentially very useful. Personally I think Abd's decision at this stage to start editing the talk page of cold fusion was extremely provocative. WMC's reaction was predictable. I agree that both these actions during the ArbCom case could and should have been avoided. It is an almighty mess and will not make this case any easier. There is far too much drama and this detracts actually from the fundamental problems which presumably the case is trying to address. Perhaps you yourself acted a little too hastily, before you had found out all the details. Please could you clarify whether you are recused or not? I hope this gets sorted out. If I dig up diffs for the Abd/WMC interactions, I'll post them here. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd claims that WMC is involved. Other than that, and that WMC has blocked him, I see no involvement. Is WMC no longer allowed to block me because he has blocked me in the past? Or is it only if I complain about it to ANI? Or ArbCom? If WMC complains about your action will you no longer be able to block him? Very poor. Verbal chat 14:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact they're both the two primary parties in an ongoing arb case makes them involved. The rest we can argue about later. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The arb case follows the ban. I think you jumped in a bit too soon here. So, to get the ban reaffirmed (again) do we need to take it to ANI (again) since you've taken charge? Verbal chat 15:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Heimstern confirmed it was one month, so it seems there is confusion among the admins following this case. See the same link to that posted here by Mathsci and by another party on Abd's page. Did Heimstern ever say it was over one month? Did anyone ever say it was over a month in contradiction to Heimstern prior to today? — Rlevse • Talk • 15:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If you feel this is to do with the arbcom case then why didn't you raise it there rather than take action yourself, while admitting you are confused? The "confusion" around the ban has been manufactured by Abd (see the evidence), and the ANI thread was closed at his request when he agreed to the ban. The initial ban notification isn't too hard to find. Verbal chat 15:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I was confused, I said the admins following it are. Mathsci even says it's confusing. That Heimstern confirmed it was only one month is clear. That WMC made an involved block is also clear. I agree it was unwise for Abd to edit CF and I'll tell him that. Where'd the idea I'm recused come from? Just because I don't make a vote on the RFAR request doesn't mean I'm recused. I don't recall any significant or involved actions with either WMC or Abd. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you've added evidence that would seem to put you in a conflicted position. I really think you've dropped the ball here. Shame. Verbal chat 15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd's style is to perform breaching experiments. You just handed him a slam-dunk, flat-out victory which shows him the benefit from doing so. Nice work. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So does WMC. Are you saying it's okay for a named party in a case to block the other named party? I also just told Abd to stay away from CF article and talk. Interesting no one can show a contradiction to Heimstern's one month confirmation. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And when he performs his next breaching experiment there, what will you do? Stamp your foot? Type in uppercase? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm does not help your case and is very unbecoming of you. I have no axe to gring on either side of this case, despite what some may think. Short, Mathsci, Verbal, I suggest you all get Heimstern, who seems to uninvolved to weigh in on the ban and why it'd still be in effect after he clearly said it was for one month only. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why put it all on one admin? Why not take it to the community, which is how things around here are supposed to work (and what was asked for in the first place). All you've done is make a mess messier and given the appearance of prejudgement and partisanship. Not very becoming in an arbiter, but it seems that is the precedent of the office. Verbal chat 15:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

WMC brought into arb realm with the block today. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It wasn't sarcasm, it was a question. Which I notice you declined to answer. What will you do? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It was sarcasm and you know it. Currently I've rebanned Abd. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So you've re-enacted WMCs ban of Abd? You better make that clear or there might be "confusion". Verbal chat 15:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I'll reenact it till I hear from Heimstern. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So now you've made to bans: until the case is over, and until you've heard from another admin. Verbal chat 15:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll sort it out in the end. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, first you state that WMC can't make a ban on their own when thats the core element of this case and then you follow up by stateing that you will ban Abd from Cold Fusion. Your posting to WMC's talk page is clearly OTT and I strongly urge you to recuse from this case now you have given evidence. You are clearly now involved and the good name of the arbitratio committee requires you to recuse. There are enough uninvolved abriters to deal with this from now on. Spartaz 15:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Of course he is not involved. It is obviously the ArbCom's responsibility to make sure that the involved parties of the case don't go around committing the same errors during the case that broght them to arbitration in the first place. Block's and block threats is the only means to do this with. If a party to an arbitration case thinks it is in order to ban his opponent during the case something drastical needs to be done to show him that it is not.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Block not ban. And many ofg us do consider Abd to be banned from Cold Fusion. Rlevse seems confused on the point but surely we can't expect arbiters to be clear about their actions before acting rashly should we? Spartaz 16:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd-WMC exchange

Rlevse, here is the final exchange between Abd and WMC :

My memory was not at fault here. Mathsci (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

So WMC, who's involved BTW, contradicts Heimstern. But note Heimstern's post is dated five days later hmm — Rlevse • Talk • 15:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Could we get some kind of clarification about when WMC hit "involved" status? I ask because the case wasn't even a request at the time this ban clarification was made and it didn't seem that there was any interaction with Abd or the article prior. Shell 16:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Rlevse, Heimstern was summarising what he had understood from the discussion on ANI as shown by the diffs I provided. Various users including User:EdChem and User:Enric Naval requested that he clarify his summary which he did bit by bit. There's no point in being overly bureaucratic when there are no very clear guidelines for this kind of page-ban. WMC was involved only after the page-ban, so I don't agree with your line of reasoning there. Unless you're suggesting that once a page-ban has been enacted by an admin, he should not be the admin who blocks for violations. What happens with Arbitration Enforcement blocks? This case could clarify all these points and provide better procedures for this kind of ban (cf Fritzpoll's proposals on the workshop page mentioned in my unanswered post in the section above). Hope this helps, Mathsci (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record here is what Heimstern said on July 19 when quizzed by Abd about the page bans :

This is at odds with Rlevse's statements about Heimstern's role in the page-bans. He was the messenger for a garbled message. Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Your ban of Abd

Per , can you please clearly state your basis for instituting such a ban? The community ban has long expired. This is undeniable. So what ban are you "re-enacting" and on what grounds? --GoRight (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take discussion to the case pages

Guys, Rlevse is well within his rights to step in here. Two parties to a case should not continue the matter under dispute in the case. They should stop and submit evidence and comments at the case pages until the matter is resolved. WMC should not have blocked Abd, and equally Abd should not have resumed posting to the talk page of the cold fusion page. It's simple common sense. Furthermore, Rlevse's talk page is not the right place to be having these discussions. Please, everyone take the discussion to the case talk pages. Carcharoth (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Surely this is the right place to demand that Rlevse recuses from thuis case. No? Spartaz 16:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Rlevse explicitly requested diffs that he hadn't had time to find himself on how the ban was enacted and ratified. Otherwise I am in agreement with you about both Abd and WMC (see my second post above). WMC seems to have gone out for the afternoon - I hope he took an umbrella. Mathsci (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Rlevse shouldn't be acting on the basis that the ban was invalid if they haven't verified that themselves and checked the diffs. That is extremely shoddy and an abuse of their exulted position. Spartaz 16:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    • In an ideal world none of this would have happened. In an ideal world Abd would not have felt compelled to perform a breaching experiment. In that same ideal world WMC would have gotten another admin to do the block. And in our ideal world Rlevse would have informed himself of the background of the case before coming on so strongly. Of those three things -- an editor testing the limits, an admin doing an iffy block, and an uninformed arbitrator helicoptering in to lay down the law -- one strikes me as more damaging to Misplaced Pages than the other two. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      • If you are going to insist on discussing things here, may I point out that the editor and admin are likely solely focused on this case. Arbitrators have lots of things they are working on at the same time. There is only one case at the moment, but there are lots of amendments and clarifications being considered at the same time, and various ban appeals and sanctions being discussed. Sure, in an ideal world, Rlevse would have taken more time over this, but I'm not going to shout at him about it, and I doubt any other arbitrators will as well. Ideally, a clerk would have stepped in to sort this out, but the case clerk is away at the moment. Rlevse stepped into prevent things getting out of control, and I continue to endorse his actions here. If you want my views on this, please see here. And now can everyone here please move to that page and discuss things there? Carcharoth (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)