Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rlevse (talk | contribs) at 22:52, 30 October 2008 (→New user - please check: results). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 – ...

Bronze Wolf Award copyvio

Hello! This morning, I tagged an article you created in 2006—Bronze Wolf Award—as a copyright violation. All of the text is lifted verbatim from this site, and that site has a visible copyright notice. Normally I'd just pop on to a user's talk page and drop in the {{Nothanks-web}} template and be done with it, but clearly you're no newcomer. So, I figured it was best to avoid the template approach and give you a heads-up that I'd tagged the page as a violation. Esrever 14:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a long time ago and I haven't edited it in over a year. I look at this soon and try to improve it. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, the source is licensed under the CCPL , but that's probably not compatible with the GFDL, right? Amalthea 15:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I wondered that myself after seeing the CCPL. My guess would be no, considering the non-commercial aspects, but IANAL. Just wanted to give the article's creator some notice about the tag. :) Cheers! Esrever 17:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI

—Wknight94 (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My stalkers - thank you

Thanks so much for the time and effort you expended on my little problem - very, very much appreciated. The result was unexpected but in hindsight not surprising - I had initially suspected a sockmaster from that part of the globe but the references to Hans and similar interventions from Manchester based IPs sent me off down the wrong track. Anyway, they've been tracked down now and hopefully the blocks will send the right message. Thanks once again, Nancy 07:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

M.D Lawes (talk · contribs) is the real master. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

M.D Lawes

Per this edit, are you confirming that all of the socks are M.D Lawes? Even the ones with Hans897 in the name? If so, I'll retag them all as confirmed M.D Lawes. Is Hans897 (talk · contribs) him/herself an M.D Lawes sock? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

See note there. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete

Please delete User:IRP/ArticleArchive/Storm_train. When deleting, please say for the reason "User requested deletion within own userspace". -- IRP ☎ 21:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done J.delanoy_adds 21:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- IRP ☎ 22:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Jay MacDonald

Hi, forgive me for appearing daft, but I had no idea a vandalism account could be usurped. Don't Usurps need to have an account first? Secondly, could you confirm you need to ask if they want to use their real name 'every' time the user requests an account? This is the first one I've come across I believe. Any replies would be appreciated \ / (⁂) 00:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a vandalism account can be usurped. My wife usurped a vandal and blocked account. A prior account is not needed, an IP or SUL owner of a name can usurp a name on en wiki without having a prior en wiki account. It's not required you ask if they want to use their real name, just a good practice to follow. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing My Account

I'd like to voluntarily close my account because I'm tired of fighting with overly pushy editors and I have a mild addiction to Misplaced Pages. How do I do this? LuisGomez111 (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to close an account. You can simply stop editing though. You can also place the {{Retired}} template on your user page. I'm sorry you're having a bad wiki day. I have them too. Just take a break and come back to happy editing. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Would an editor with an oversight privilege level be able to close accounts? -- IRP ☎ 16:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No, they could delete the page so people can't retrieve it, but there's no reason to do that if there has been no privacy violations and it'd probably be a GFDL issue too in that case. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information -- IRP ☎ 19:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Request

Dave1185 (talk · contribs) is under a slow-motion attack by a sockfarm that is spilling sexually provocative images all over his userpage and talk page.

The most obvious ones include

DavyJonesHuangDi (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

RestoreTheking (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Vietyqouc (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Viet woman love negro men (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Huang IV 4 fourth (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Viet woman love megro men (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Can you look and see if there are any more socks in the drawer and possibly nuke the underlying IP(s)? Thanks. J.delanoy_adds 22:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

DavyJonesHuangDi and Huang IV 4 fourth were both from 4 Oct, but Huang a tad earlier. No obvious master found, so use one of them for the master for now. No other accounts found.  Confirmed these 6 are all the same user. Block and tag as appropriate. Blocked one IP for a week. Keep eye out for more vandalism. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tagged and bagged. Thanks! J.delanoy_adds 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ, found on one of their pages, so I fixed all the tags. Same guy. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

Should I merge VORTEX and VORTEX2 into VORTEX projects? -- IRP ☎ 23:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

How is this? -- IRP ☎ 23:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Now delete initial page

Please delete User:IRP/ArticlesForCreation/VORTEX projects under U1. -- IRP ☎ 23:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Appreciate both you and J.delanoy assistance on my user pages, that sneaky little rascal is really starting to get on my nerve. For laughs, I shall quote my wife saying this: "What's with this constant harassment by someone so fixated (wth!?) on you? I think you got a new secret admirer!". But it's the weekend again, so we shall all have our last laugh, eh? Cheers~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 23:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'll do the CU in a few minutes. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Take your time, I think we're pretty sure that s/he has nowhere to run, eh? Cheers~! ...Dave1185 (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

USURP

Thanks so much for the usurp. When I go to my talk page, it redirects somewhere else. Is it possible you could look at it? Thanks. _talk 03:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Rlevse! _talk 03:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

SUL renames

I've declined Footmark to Trace because according the SUL checker, the SUL Trace from fr.wiki has a better claim over the en.wiki username than Footmark does. For Iona to Jonah.ru, something's amiss. I've asked a question, since I'm a little clueless as to what they want done. bibliomaniac15 04:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

SSP Question

Is my solution here good enough to wrap things up for this case? If so, how long should I wait before closing the case? I know the user has been disruptive, but based on his comments in the case I'd like to give him a chance to shape up now that I've talked to him (I'll be watching to see how he responds). If he keeps causing trouble, we can bring him back to SSP or another appropriate noticeboard. SunDragon34 (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This is vote stacking and disruption, egregious violations of WP:SOCK and the puppetmaster's block log has many entries. My standard action in such a case (and it's pretty normal re other admins) is to block the socks indef and tag their user pages and block the puppetmaster however long I see fit, anywhere from a week to indef. Having said that, the socks here had been around awhile and my checkuser radar went off for that and other reasons. Results in the CU case. Releaseable CU results recorded in the SSP case link. I have to block the master indef too. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I presume you meant "results at the SSP case," Rlevse? I just spent 5 minutes hunting for the case, before realising you'd posted the results at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/A State Of Trance. :) AGK 12:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yea, DOH on me!! — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey...Rlevse, is there any way we could give the master account a second chance? He promised me here that he would stop editing as his alt-accounts. I told him I would try to get him lenience if he did that. And it's pretty simple to see whether he keeps his promise. Is there a satisfying alternative to indef-blocking him? I was going to work with him on his other behavioral issues. The way I see it, he could be a good contributor, but he might come back with more socks if we indef him, especially after (in his eyes) he was offered mercy and received none after agreeing to my terms. I'm sorry to bother you, but may I please have a chance to try to work with him? Thank you for your consideration. Cheers. SunDragon34 (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll unblock him, listing you as mentor and his promise to stick to one account. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

More clever way to archive

Please see my talk page. I did it by creating a link to an old revision rather than creating a new directory. If everyone did it, it would save a noticeable amount of disk space on the server, and it can only be edited by administrators. This way, you do not have to beg other users not to edit your archive. -- IRP ☎ 15:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet Another Sock Puppetery Accusation Against Me

You may remember I wrote to you yesterday about closing my account because of annoying editors. Here's why.

User:Aervanath has filed a sock puppet accusation against me on behalf of user:Mountolive. The sock puppets he/she accuses me of using are user:Bluee Mountain and user:Warrington. I find this strange because had anybody bothered to check the IP addresses of the accounts in question he/she would readily see I'm not guilty. Why hasn't anybody done that? Also, The report seems to be filed on Mountolive's talk page. This seems very odd to me. So, I have two questions: How do I encourage somebody to check the IP addresses? And where do I post my official response? LuisGomez111 (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You Accused Me of Sock Puppetry

But you are socking with other accounts, even today, and you know exactly what I've talking about, on the same articles too, would you care to explain that? Note, Luis is correct that the accounts in the SSP are unrelated to him, but, there are those other ones. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC) (How come your signature appears differently on this post?) -- IRP ☎ 19:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No idea, just does sometimes, I wonder too. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My Response to sock puppetry accusation

When you refer to "those other ones" I assume you mean Pasta4470 and The Thin Man Who Never Leaves. Those are two openly declared, alternate accounts I've been using for several months now. I added an alternate account notification to Pasta4470 on May 27 at 10:57 UTC and then one to Thin Man on June 23 at 08:46 UTC . By the way here's the wikipedia policy that allows users to have alternate accounts in case you're not aware of it (though you should be).

Therefore, not only are you wrong about me having sock puppets but you're also wrong about the date of my recent changes. Have a look the contribs for all three accounts for yesterday. You'll notice I've made changes to no articles nor have I left messages on any talk pages. The most recent change I made was the day before yesterday with my Thin Man account before putting the "Retired" tag on all three of my accounts. However, after I left a message for you two days ago about closing my accounts, I tried to put a hash codes on my accounts thinking that that was the way to close them. However, I deleted the hash code templates once you pointed out to me that the "Retired" tag was the best I could do. Perhaps this is the flurry of activity you're referring to. But all of that was legitimate and, as I said, occurred two days ago, not yesterday.

Moving on to another issue: Mountolive is determined to discuss civility. Therefore, I will as well. My first confrontation with Mountolive occurred earlier this month after he insisted on reverting my edits rather aggressively. To his shock, I reported for him for violating the 3RR. Here was the administrator's finding:

...no vio but Mountolive is right on the edge of a violation... Apparently, since this time, Mountolive has considered me persona non grata.

Regarding my behavior: It's true that I wrote one angry message to Mountolive both on his talk page and on the Paella talk page but I promptly apologized for my tone in both places.

Not long after that, a few of the editors of the Paella article started arguing over several issues at once. Seeing this, I decided to initiate a dispute resolution. After spending considerable time looking through Misplaced Pages policy I discovered the way to start was by initiating a wp:RfC which I did here.. I then encouraged Mountolive to participate. He responded by accusing me of sock puppetry, as you can see. He then made a change to the Paella article and promptly insulted me on the article's talk page (something for wich he has never apologized). I chose not to react for the sake of not starting another argument. However user:Warrington angrily defended me (as I warned Mountolive that he/she might). I then thanked Warrington. Apparently, my warning and Warrington's reaction convinced Mountolive that Warrington was my sock puppet. However, we all know he was wrong about that now because you checked the IP addresses.

So, I have apologized to Mountolive, encouraged him to participate in an RfC and I bit my tongue when he insulted me. Are those the actions of an uncivil man? The answer is obviously no.

In summary here are the issues of the case, each of which I have refuted:

1) Mountolive accused my of sock puppetry. However, you found that accusation to be baseless after checking the IP addresses of the accounts in question.

2) You accused me of sock puppetry with my two openly declared, alternate accounts. However this defies the definition of both a sock puppet and an openly declared, alternate account. Also I showed you that I declared them months before this dispute arose.

3) Strangely, you also said I was socking yesterday. However my contribs show I made no changes yesterday to any article or talk page.

I think I've proven my case.

However, there is one more issue I'd like to bring up. I put in great effort in expanding and improving the Paella article. Here's what it looked like before I began editing it.. Here's what it looks like today (Paella). This is largely due to my effort with smaller contributions from Bluee and Warrington. Thanks to us, it now includes a lengthy history section, two basic recipes, three more images (two of them contributed by Warrington) and many citations. The only person on Misplaced Pages who has thanked me for all this work is Warrington. However, other editors involved have done nothing but criticize me. Unfortunately, this isn't the first time this has happened. I've received tremendous criticism from other editors as well after editing other articles. This reminds me of the expression no good deed goes unpunished.

These conflicts led me to place the "Retired" tags on my accounts. I see no point in editing if it only leads to arguments and criticism. For that reason I will not be editing any other articles. However, if you block me then you will have clearly over stepped your authority as an administrator because I don't see how I've violated any Misplaced Pages policies. So if you block me, you can be certain I will appeal the decision to a higher Misplaced Pages authority purely for reasons of principle. LuisGomez111 (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

retired?

Hi Rlevse. Thank you very much for your attention to this case, which has brought quite an unexpected (to me, that is) result. It did smell like socks in the end, didnt it?...

On the face of an editor (LuisGomez111) who is capable of editting under three different acknowledged accounts some 400 out of the last 500 edits of any given article (in this case, paella, see history ticker ) an editor who has the dazzling chutzpah to deny this very same record regardless of how self-evident it is, who posted this but then kept editting at ease right after under two different accounts all the same (business as usual for this user), and, last but not least, an editor who apparently seems to take as personal any changes done to anything "he has written"...well, call me skeptical, but I very much doubt of any real retiring intention whatsoever. Or, if these accounts are retired, I certainly expect others to replace them. I mention this as a comment addressed to the community which should be taking a decission (by now I realise already we are discussing in the wrong places, let it be my own or your talk page, I guess a more proper playground for this should be created somewhere).

Also, as seen in your report, I definitely think that the meatpuppet concern is certainly present (I still fail to see why such an angry reaction coming from other users to what was a minor edit after all).

All in all, I still think he is gaming the system, willingly or less so. And that it should be stopped.

If you want a light-hearted comment regarding this, anecdotal evidence of his true intentions could be shown at the very same user name of one of his admitted socks "The Thin Man Who Never Leaves" :D

As for myself, I am certainly leaving for a leisure trip tonight and I dont think I'll be able to check wikipedia until next friday. By then I'll try to catch up. In the meantime, if this debate is centralized elsewhere, you have my permission (and I will actually thank you) if you copy this post wherever it takes.

For the time being, just have a good remainder of the weekend and, again, thanks for your work with this. Mountolive _{le déluge} 03:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Mountolive: Apparently the revision statistics software doesn't always work right. On the day I first checked it actually did read 48 edits for my primary account and about two or three for my other two accounts. Now that I've checked it again I can see that the total edits for all three are exactly 300. I have no reason to lie about this.LuisGomez111 (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

ColourWolf sockpuppets

Two of them, YellowRibbonRedemption and GrassrootsStalk, has not been blocked. Can you block him? Arbiteroftruth (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Eichikiyama

Hi, Rlevse, could you take a look at Eichikiyama (talk · contribs)'s SSP case? And although I include Bukubku (talk · contribs) for meatpuppeting and disruptive/suspicious behaviors, I'm not sure whether I have to prepare for a separate file. Thanks in advance. --Caspian blue 18:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give them "warning for their lack of civility"? They are not only blatantly meatpuppeting but also falsely call me "vandal" with propaganda. They don't ever use "talk page" but just blindly reverting to delete my "properly cited info" and then insert fringe theory or "primary sources written during Japanese occupation period" which has been regarded "unreliable and distorted sources" by scholars. If they keep doing so, I think AN/I would be a right place since RFCU or SSP on dynamic ISP are not warranted.--Caspian blue 22:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ja — Rlevse • Talk • 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I wrote in Talkpage. Thank you for guidance. --Eichikiyama (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, thank you your message. I strongly approve of your calm proposal. and Please keep in mind this

Caspian, you insult me in this other users page. How dare you! Answer me When I call you "vandal", I call you Caspian. I only call your assertive edition "vandalizm" You and Sennen deleted sourced article do not lay the blame at another my door. I detest your insult in concealment --Bukubku (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bukubku, this sort of rhetoric will get you blocked next time. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you read my message. I become more careful. I'm sorry--Bukubku (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Good day, Rlevse. I was wondering if you could take a look on R7529Z (talk · contribs), Mccain4pres (talk · contribs), NutsForYou (talk · contribs), Adrastus1 (talk · contribs) (already blocked) 97.117.1.138 (talk · contribs), 24.197.159.68 (talk · contribs), and 24.2.75.206 (talk · contribs). Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

 Unrelated Adrastus1 (talk · contribs), 24.197.159.68 (talk · contribs), 24.2.75.206 (talk · contribs)

 Confirmed Mccain4pres (talk · contribs) = R7529Z (talk · contribs) = NutsForYou (talk · contribs) = 97.117.1.138 (talk · contribs) = Arbysbeefmelt (talk · contribs) = StatingTheFacts (talk · contribs) = JP1123 (talk · contribs), indef'd except IP two weeks, Mccain4pres as master. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  21:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind also checking Mikevinpa (talk · contribs)? --Kanonkas :  Talk  07:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 Possible Adrastus1 (talk · contribs) = Mikevinpa (talk · contribs) — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Another "Hagger" move vandal

User:Tel'Quess (Contribs) is another one I spotted. Is that user blocked? I have already seen other things like this, such as moving pages to things like "H..A..G..G..E..R". -- IRP ☎ 20:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked way back in June. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this user blocked indefinitely? -- IRP ☎ 20:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see the block log. --Kanonkas :  Talk  20:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please create User:Tel'Quess with {{Indefblock|historical}}. -- IRP ☎ 20:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You can do that, but leave off the historical. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope it isn't possible for a non-admin to do it as the user page is currently fully protected, I guess to deny recognition. --Kanonkas :  Talk  21:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

then we won't do it at all. and don't indent my post, IRP. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't indent it. You could've said please to be more polite to other editors. -- IRP ☎ 21:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been dealing with socks, vandals, etc all day doing checkuser checks. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. -- IRP ☎ 21:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Petermaxlawrence (2nd)

? J.delanoy_adds 00:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

OOPS, sorry, fixed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Friendly advice

Im sure you know why people use spas for scientology articles. That said, all of my contributions have been to improve the article, and "jeopardizing quality status on a WP:GA article" is an inappropriately biased view of a minor non-content-related editorial dispute. I appreciate the advice though. Cheers, Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say "jeopardizing quality status on a WP:GA article", someone else did. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Im aware. I presumed that your concern i might be here to "stir up trouble" was based on that, so I wanted to make sure to let you know that the discussion of Project Chanology is not as bad as the comment implies. Sorry if that wasnt clear and happy editing. Wutudidthere...isawit (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Another request

Can you take a look at this? Someone just asked me to block someone who has no edits, and I'm not sure what to do. J.delanoy_adds 00:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for bugging you all the time. If you would rather that I fill out formal requests, I can. J.delanoy_adds 00:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"absolutely convinced" isn't enough for a CU, you need evidence, but I can say, as you can see, Lyle123 is a big puppetmaster. The person needs to supply evidence or you can block on behavior. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied to your latest post on my talk page. (2) -- IRP ☎ 18:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I did post another message on my talk page. -- IRP ☎ 19:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I know. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Should I make an outdent template with that code? -- IRP ☎ 20:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If you like. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks

for the pleasant surprise! I'm sure I don't deserve the honor, but I'm terribly grateful nonetheless. Kind regards — Dan | talk 21:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please get in talk

You sent us your message,"I strongly encourage all editors on Japan-Korea articles to discuss issues calmly on talk pages not edit war. And stay civil and cease the personal attacks.". But some people didn't obey your advice. And Endless edition War is continuing. Please get in talk, and back the article when you warned us. These three articles,Empress Myeongseong,Korea under Japanese rule,Woo Jang-choon, need third person' help.--Bukubku (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a mediator. You guys need some form of dispute resolution. File for mediation is my suggestion. I protected the pages though. The Japan-Korea editors need to learn to cooperate instead of fighting all the time. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please protect those articles and back those articles when you warned us. And be watching those articles Talk page.--Bukubku (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I already full protected them. But I'm not watching them. You guys all need to learn to get along and cooperate to make a better article. Work it out on your own or go to mediation. If any of the editors can't build an accurate, neutral, well-sourced article without fingerpointing, name-calling, etc, then they need to learn how real fast as I will block when needed. This goes for both Japan and Korea editors. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfair

You ordered us, so I obey your order. I haven't edit and get in edition war after your order. But you protect president version. Thoses three articles vastly changed last edited person. It's unfair. --Bukubku (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

When an admin full-protects a page, he or she does not read the content beforehand. They just protect, without regard to anything. You should read m:The Wrong Version. J.delanoy_adds 23:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, You asked for help and protection and I protected it. I am not going to edit to suit one side's preference. My role is to stay neutral. Again, if the editors involved would learn to get along, you wouldn't have these problems. Take a look at the Scouting related articles, they almost never ever have edit wars or get protected. You should learn from their example. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

People disobeyed your order should be blocked. --Bukubku (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Diffs, not accusations. Evidence. Only admins can edit through full protection. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See Woo Jang-choon, last version is writen Japanese are Racist without source by Caspian Blue. I hope your protection is unintended, but this version remains 2 weeks. you should have responsibility.--Bukubku (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See above statements and links. And if you make one more accusation without supporting evidence I'll block you for disruption. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand, you just did your job, that's all. OK. The problem is unwished incident. Whenever possible, release the protection. See as reference.--Bukubku (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It will be possible when all involved editors work together instead of fighting, bickering, and fingerpointing all the time. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope so, too. Did you read my references? "When all involved editors work together instead of fighting, bickering, and fingerpointing" , I think it is too difficult with no helping thrird person. Please release those protection. Now Written Japanese are Racist.--Bukubku (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The door to mediation is here: Misplaced Pages:Mediation, not my talk page. If you want this to work, you all need to put aside your personal agendas. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Committee request "all parties to the dispute indicate willingness to take part in mediation", it seems difficult, he delete even "{fact}". Please release your protections or get in talk. Japanese is not Racist.--Bukubku (talk) 03:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude. Leave Rlevse alone. How many times, and in how many ways does he have to say the exact same thing? If you don't stop bugging him, if he doesn't block you, I will block you. J.delanoy_adds 03:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Warrington

Thank you, and see my talk page.

Warrington (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

SLR

Hi, A discussion probbaly needs your attention if possible.Taprobanus (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Posted there and on his talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for review

Hello. I intended to appeal at Arbcom against the AA/AA2 restrictions imposed on me by you recently. I was recommended to try to reach a consent with you before that. Hereby I friendly ask you if you have a little time to review the restrictions. I would like to have an open discussion with you. Thank you for you attention. --Vacio (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

under review. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

1. See m:The Wrong Version and apply it to the AA situation. What are your thoughts?
2. No one, including you, has edited Talk:Artsakh since Oct 5 in an attempt to resolve this issue that got you under restrictions. I don't expect you to answer for others, but why haven't you tried?
3. In User:Vacio/Appeal you state your version is the correct one but how is an outsider to know that? Cf item one. Note, it's not an admin's job to determine the "right" version. In this type of situation it's to stop edit wars, etc
4. What about the Hewsen ref (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive28#User:Vacio)? Are you saying that's not a reliable source and he's not a scholar?
5. What have you done since Oct 5 to resolve the long simmering disputes on AA articles?
6. Your appeal letter seems to say you see nothing wrong with your actions on Artsakh yet you and User:Grandmasterka (who is still under voluntary restrictions I believe) were clearly edit warring over it. Yet your appeal seems to justify that by claiming your version was the "right" one (cf item 1 and I have no idea which one is "right"). Be advised, edit warring is never justified, that's why we have talk pages which should be used in lieu of edit warring. Using a talk page and being "right" (even if you are in fact right) does not justify edit warring and certainly not while the talk was going on.
7. Why do you think: a) so many ethnic factions use wiki as a way to push their view of things, b) why is it so difficult for admins to deal with these situations, and c) what do you think can be done to resolve these issues more effectively and efficiently? To get an admin's view of this issue, throw yourself into something other than AA (The Troubles, Sri Lanka, Jews-Muslims, East Europe, etc etc etc) and try to solve it. Let me know how it went. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the time you splent for. I can't respond on all your questions, but only what I think is important here.

• I'm not sure my actions on the Artsakh article were completely harmonious with Misplaced Pages rules, but that was maybe because of my lack of experience and knowledge about what the rules require and how differences should be resolved. On the other hand I believe, if you compare the current version of Artsakh with the version before I started to edit it, you will agree that in the main the article looks much better: most of the statements are sourced, a lot of text which was irrelevant to this article or controversial is removed, there are more paragraphs, etc.

• Then, I don't deny Robert Hewsen is a reliable source (indeed a very prominent expert of the history of Armenia, I myself quoted him many times), but that's besides the point here; please take a look at these excerpts from my previous complaint on talk:Artsakh concerning the sentence "Hayk and Sisak are just eponyms and not real persons":

1. ...Also your quote of Hewsen is absolute inappropriate here, did you actually read the text above? there is nothing said about Sisak at all! ...--Vacio (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
   
   
2. Grandmaster and Parishan, you surprise me! There is not a single word said about Sisak in this article ...--Vacio (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
   
   
3. ...I think it is hopeless anymore to say that there is nothing, not a single word said about Sisak ...--Vacio (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• And this is what I really experience as a grievance: why nobody responded on this cautions? (Except of User:Grandmaster's note "And there's no justification for the removal of the quote from Hewsen".) How fair was it from Grandmaster accusing me afterwards of "removing a quote from an authoritative western scholar", without having reacted on my threefold complaint before? This is the point I feel I am treated unjust and why requested for review.

• Finally, I also want to quote an excerpt from a reaction of a third-party user in this discussion:

Grandmaster, You seem to be using some original research deductions, like "what language they must have spoke PROVES their ethnicity", to claim that certain ancestral people referenced in Armenian history books never even existed. Even if perhaps they never existed, the wording needs to attribute this POV to the sources explicitly arguing this in clear language, otherwise it is known as "POV pushing", ie, siding with sources of one particular POV, rather than treating them all "neutrally".

• As you see, I was not the only one who complained against the above mentioned sentence. I agree that I had to be more patient, but on the other hand I hope you see why I feel I am treated unjust. I still hope we can come to an understanding on this, can we? --Vacio (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If Grandmasterka wasn't already on voluntary restrictions, I'd have put him on it too but I felt it was unneeded since he was on voluntary restrictions. Have you or he been editing war since then? As for the other matters, please allow me time to think this over. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably he was and as far I can see he has not been editing war since then, nor I have been. I only one time was engaged in edit warring - in the article Mihranids again with Grandmaster. Please look olaso on this: I believe he was manipulating with a primary source: Movses Kalankatvaci, a 7th century Armenian historiographer wrote this:

With treachery in his hart, he invited the Eranshahiks, the ancient native Armenian (haykazean) family ... and at that feast of their own blood he beheaded sixty man.

Movses Kaghankatvatsi, History of Aghvank. Book II, chapter XVII.

This is what Grandmaster wrote in the article referring to that source:

• "Mihran's great-grandson killed all the members of the previous Arsacid dynasty and became the ruler of the country."

The Arsacids were of Persian origin and were absolute different from the Eranshahiks (or Aranshahiks), which is regarded as an Armenian house, by all historians I could find, including R. Hewsen. I almost literally quoted the above mentioned primary source in that excerpt, but he reverted the article again back to the previous version and look how he treated me on this:

• And why do you delete a link to Arcasids, and who do you think these "Haykuzuni Arranshahs" were? Even the title of the dynasty is Persian, there were no other dynasty before Mihranids other than Arcasids. Grandmaster (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• OR is to claim that there was a "dynasty of Erranshahiks", you have no reliable sources to support that claim, yet you make your own interpretation of primary sources. This entire "Erranshahik" claim should be removed from this article, first, it is irrelevant to this topic, second, it is OR. Grandmaster (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• There's no reason to believe that Arranshahs were anyone other than Arcasids. After all, Mihranids had to kill them to take over the country, and no other dynasty is registered between Arcasids and Mihranids. Both those dynasties were Iranian, it is a well documented fact. Therefore Vacio's edits that he tries to force into the article on Mihranids are clearly OR and POV. ...Grandmaster (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Denying that the Eranshahik dynasty ever existed, he also rejected the map, which I made specially for Misplaced Pages, and it was removed. Since then, I have had very strained relations with this user. Nevertheless, I really don't want that you impose restrictions on him, please don't do that! If you agree with me that he was acting improper on talk:Artsakh and talk:Mihranids, an admonition would be probably enough. Also, we already had reached consensus on some points in the article Artsakh (although very hardly) and I still believe we can work together... if only this AA/AA2 restrictions were lifted from me. I know, I losing my temper I have done many mistakes, but you will see that I am absolutely not wanting to reach any kind of information in Misplaced Pages by means of edit-warring. I'm just a lover of medieval Armenian historiographers and want to use the knowledge I have. --Vacio (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hanna Barbera dual TFA

(Responded on my talk page). Raul654 (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

New user - please check

This relates to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Teamxrsx. Please look at/keep an eye on Special:Contributions/Black Key, who has started making edits to Fusebox Funk with uncited comments that could be only added by someone with ties to the project. I am making some minor edits to their recent changes. Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Diffs are your friend. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/66.177.185.11 making the same edits. Soundvisions1 (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

These are unrelated to Teamxrsx, but it is likely that Black Key (talk · contribs) = 66.177.185.11 (talk · contribs) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

ACA

I got it :) Daniel (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

GOOD because for some reason I always have trouble with ACA, have never figured out why ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't click the header edit section link, but edit the whole page :) Daniel (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You missed the remedies, m'dear :) Daniel (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't, they were there, I just accidently cut them, haha, Pls rm case from ACA pls. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, will do. Daniel (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think by omitting the SlimVirgin remedy from the notification, you're not reporting the full resolution. Also, there's a lot of redlinks in there :) Daniel (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the links. I mentioned the slim remedy but not her by name. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Bukubku

Can you input your thought to ANI report on me filed by Bukubku (talk · contribs) since you're also mentioned on the report? Well, I see same old harassing stuff on me again such as by Jazz81089 (indef.blocked), Opoona (indef.blocked). The user not only lied about my edits and my suggestion for him to open an discussion for Woo Jang-choon but also also accuses me of using sockpuppetry, so I think checkuser's clarification would be also appreciated. Thanks.--Caspian blue 01:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, and could you also look at my addition to the thread WP:ANI#Checkuser's attention needed and newbie User:Bukubku's harassment? I don't think that Bukubku (talk · contribs) is a newbie at all per his depth of Wiki knowledge and activities, and the report on me is very similar with reports filed by Pabopa (talk · contribs), or Opoona (talk · contribs), Jazz81089 (talk · contribs). --Caspian blue 01:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Order of the Arrow COI

Sorry to send you a template. I didn't realize it was a faux pas. So I'll just speak plainly: As an Order of the Arrow member who has pledged not to reveal "safeguarded" info about the OA, you should recuse yourself from the discussion on the inclusion of such content in the OA article. Thanks. --Spirit76 (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That does not prevent me from participating in a talk page disucussion. I already decided not to use my admin bits in this case, FYI. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can do as you please. Just a suggestion. --Spirit76 (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin-Lar

Are you sure about "Slimvirgin's conduct" passing 5 to 3 with 1 abstention? I thought it was 11 active arbitrators, less one abstention gives 10 total, so required majority would be 6? I guess not. 87.254.91.148 (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Abstentions reduce the required votes to pass. See PD page section on arbs and clerks implementation notes. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they normally reduce the required votes in exactly the way I said above i.e. it's treated as though instead of 11 active arbitrators there are only 10 but a majority of 10 is still 6+. I'm sure you know your own business though so I'll leave it at that. Thanks for the response. 87.254.91.148 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I see what you're talking about, the implementation notes were made before Sam changed his vote. I'll ask the arbs about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

My Guestbook

Hey there! Fancy signing my Guestbook? I'll give you cookies. ;) -- MISTER ALCOHOL 20:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Moses Kalankatuatsi. History of country of Aluank. Chapter XVII. About the tribe of Mihran, hailing from the family of Khosrow the Sasanian, who became the ruler of the country of Aluank