Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:39, 25 September 2010

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  · 01 Jan 2010 – 31 Mar 2010  · 01 Apr 2010 – 30 Jun 2010  · 01 Jul 2010 – 30 Sep 2010  ·

“Dog” The Teddy Bear

Question

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

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

DYK for Scouter's Training Award

On 7 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scouter's Training Award, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

Thank you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Silver Buffalo cat

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

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

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

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

GLaDOS

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

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

Witch of Pungo on the move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two issues...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • OK..

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

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

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

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

DC Meetup #12

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

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

Surprised

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

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

911 Is a Joke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK for Scouter's Key Award

On 10 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scouter's Key Award, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

DYK for Pungo, Virginia

On 10 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pungo, Virginia, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

DYK for Grace Sherwood

On 10 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grace Sherwood, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

Thank you kindly for the award!

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

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

Admin template

Hey,

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

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

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

User:Thumperward/admin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grace Sherwood AKA Witch of Pungo Pre-FAC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the award

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

DYK for Lawrence E. Roberts

On 11 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lawrence E. Roberts, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

TheDYKUpdateBot 18:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A little recognition

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

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

Becoming an Arbitration Clerk

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

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

Appreciation

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

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

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

Clear-up

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

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

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

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

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

Barnstars!

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

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

You're very welcome.

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

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

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

Hello again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My screw up

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

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

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

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

Edit, I see you've figured it out. Cool. Let me know about above if you wish. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'm not looking to incite more arguments here; I think we've had enough run-ins over the last few days. Now...clearly I'm not as experienced as you are with the DYK business. Throughout my article writing period on wikipedia, I've never had anyone question the external-links-as-a-source business, as it's the "done thing" for the sport on this website. I've grown up on the site, so to speak, with that practice as common ground and I've never really questioned it. Coming here was a bit of a culture shock and that is what has caused some of the conflict here recently. For that, I apologise and just say that from here on out, I'll be adapting your suggestions into my future created articles. I can see arguments for that method and arguments against, but I've learned that it's best to avoid said arguments and just adapt it for the greater good.

I'd also like to address last night. As you well know, I wasn't happy with the conduct of Yoninah and a couple of other people. However, now that things have calmed, I won't be probing it any further. I'm just leaving it dead for everyone's sake. I still think I had a half-decent argument for removing the inciteful comments, but I can see how it would tick people off. Therefore, I will say that I won't be doing that again from here on out. Causing trouble/"FORUMSHOP" or whatever that rule was, was certainly not my intention and I've come across many who agree that comments that don't help the growth/discussion etc of something are best off removed for the sake of preventing arguments. That was my rationale then, but I won't be removing it again.

I guess what I want to achieve here is a fresh start, so to speak, as the last few days have been troubling and frustrating. If I've caused you problems (I'm guessing generally I have for a few days now), then I'm sorry and I hope this can be put behind us. As I say, I'm a newcomer to DYK and I'm learning the citing side of it all over again. At this point, I realise I'm rambling, so I'll wrap it up, but if we could start afresh, that would be appreciated. Thank you. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

A fresh start is no problem. There are lots of cliques/users/topics on wiki that do things that don't jive with standard policy and when they encounter parts of wiki like DYK/GA/FA/FL,etc these sorts of things happen. These standards exist to improve the quality of the articles and hence the encyclopedia. I tried to tell you why external links aren't considered refs but you wouldn't listen. Then some other things happened and you got really frustrated and we all know the rest of the story. So let's just move forward from here. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. I have a small request if you'd be happy to oblige. In queue 1, my Aaron Wilkinson hook is close to going live (within a few hours). I was wondering if you could make a minor alteration to it? What I'd like changing is "Aaron Wilkinson's" to "The Ultimate Fighter: Team GSP vs. Team Koscheck competitor Aaron Wilkinson's" - that is, if you think it still has the same readability. I just think that with that added part being a current TV show, it would help pull in more views, as otherwise people may not know who he is. Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

For some reason that reads odd to me. Suggest leaving it as is. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, at my suggestion, Paralympiakos has posted this request at WT:DYK, where others have also expressed some reluctance towards this suggested change. EdChem (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Madonna of humility

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

no problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Prep4

Hey, Rlevse, saw that you're doing prep4. Should Zoë Baird be linked in the Nannygate hook? Also, there's an extra full stop in that hook before the question mark. Regards, Strange Passerby (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the PERIOD ;-) Why link Zoe when Nannygate is already linked? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, just reading the hook, I've got no idea who Baird is. But if it's a case of not wanting to overlink, and those like me who want to know who she is should click for the Nannygate article, fair enough. And thanks for fixing said punctuation mark. ;) Strange Passerby (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I read your question wrong, will link - sorry. And I bet you say whilst instead of while don't you ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 19:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK September 8

Hi. Could you pls reinstate Thomas Lainson etc to the suggestions page ... I have been edit-conflicted while adding a response which should cover all points. (Have just got home after being away for 2 days, hence have only just seen the comments.) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so promptly. My responses/changes are pasted back in. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Restorations

Would you mind restoring the full histories of the pages User:CWii and User talk:CWii and then inserting them into Category:Blocked historical users please, just in case the user in question returns in the future? -- 92.19.22.193 (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That was deleted over a year ago. What has come up to change things? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

He can be considered a historical (and one-time trusted) user, with over 20000 edits made since the start of 2007. There are other people with similar statistics, but so far the page histories for their respective pages has remained intact. Let's go into some of these cases:

• MC10 and ActivExpression recently got caught up in a mistaken identity case involving the abusive sockmaster Madden NFL 21 and his puppets, but their pages' histories have not been deleted.
• Isis was the first sysop to be banned. Most of her talk page history was recently deleted because of a faulty redirect to a deleted image but was eventually partly-resurrected and turned into a redirect to her userpage, which is the norm per WP:BAN.
• Plenty of deceased users still have their page and talk histories intact, despite having their accounts blocked as standard procedures.

So as such, User:CWii and User talk:CWii should NOT have been deleted by User:Tanthalas39 in the first place, unless it involved a right to vanish. So, may those pages be restored please? -- 92.19.22.193 (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not familiar with this user. You should ask the deleting admin first. You're quite knowledgeable for an IP. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Why be everyone a–talkin' all strangely today?
☠  Because we  ☠ ☠ ARRRRRR! ☠
	With a yo-ho-ho, I be wishin' yer a right rollickin' ☠ Happy International Talk Like a Pirate Day ☠ To be a joinin' the fun and frolicks, yer can be addin' {{User:Chzz/pirate}} to the top o' yer talkpage / userpage for today, fer a fine fancy decoration. Emptied after midnight it'll be, so don't be dallyin' now! Hoist yer mainsail t'wards the I-R-Sea, either a'helpin' new sailors or on me own poopdesk, and let's parrty like it's 1699!  Cap'nChzz  ►  00:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Happy ITLAPD Capn' slappy and Ol Chumbucket Problems playing this file? See media help.	*How To Be Speakin' Pirate-Like *Official website *Auto-translate to pirate speak
Disclaimer: It's very rare for me to send messages like this; it might seem frivolous or hypocritical, as I often complain about myspacing of the project. However, as a pastafarian, this is my equivalent of a Christmas greeting. I seriously believe we need to have fun sometimes. If you object, I apologize; let me know, and I won't bother you again.

Talkback

Thank you :) Alpha Quadrant (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Your day

Thanks very much! A little unexpected. Hope you enjoyed Sherlock Holmes Baffled - it must have been one of the shortest FAs ever! Bob talk 00:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

DYKs

Thanks for all your hard work on the DYKs. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion log. Need help

Hi, Rlevse. Please kindly advise how I can find my stub articles content Mokshan numerals and User:Numulunj pilgae/Mokshan script after deletion. Cannot find right path in deletion log ( Thank you in advance.--Numulunj pilgae 12:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Numulunj pilgae (talk • contribs)

User:Numulunj pilgae/Mokshan script was delted in August after an MFD. Mokshan numerals was not deleted, it was moved to:Prehistoric numerals. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

My day

Thanks for the star. i will continue to try to live up to the descriptive "awesome", though some days i dont feel it so much. This is my first star, not to proud to say i was hoping i would get one (and i know i could award one to myself, with no shame, but being noticed by others is a very human desire). You and your project are awesome, and this simple act hopefully helps build the sense of community that can keep us from the tragedy of the commons.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad to recognize deserving people. And yes, wiki can be very frustrating at times. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My Day!

Oh wow, that really was unexpected! Many thanks, it's really brightened my day - well, MY day :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

sock block

I noticed you blocked User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? for being a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Otto4711. I don't have much experience with sockpuppet investigations, but the only SPI page I can find for Otto4711 is from 2009 (here), and it doesn't mention User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? at all. This is almost certainly my own inability to navigate this part of Misplaced Pages. Can you point me to the place(s) which would show the history of the situation which led to Cow's block? Thanks. SnottyWong 14:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)