Rlevse

——————————————— MY TALK PAGE ———————————————

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

My Admin Policy: I trust that my fellow admins' actions are done for the good of Wikipedia. So if any of my admin actions are overturned I will not consider such an action to be a "Wheel War", but rather an attempt to improve Wikipedia. If I disagree with your action, I will try to discuss it with you or with the admin community, but I absolve you in advance of any presumption of acting improperly. We should all extend the same benefit of the doubt to our fellow admins, until they repeatedly prove that they are unworthy of such a presumption. For every editor, I try to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and expect the same in return.

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 –

Re: Semiprotecting Bald Eagle

The protection was undone in about an hour by another admin.... — TKD::Talk 11:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Omaha Beach edit

Hi - I'm not sure why you removed the link to the 1st Inf Div in the Order of Battle section in the Omaha Beach article. True this is the third link in that article, but the first is in the lead, the second on first mention in the main article, and the third the order of battle link. Is that too excessive? As it stands now, removing the link entirely has made the order of battle section factually inaccurate. Cheers. --FactotEm 15:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that was "See also". But this begs another question. If you have the OOB in the infobox, why do you need a separate section for it? IMHO linking it in the infobox and only at the first part in the article would be fine and remove the whole extra section. Ask the MILHIST people perhaps, Kirill, but that would make sense to me. But I also note the infobox is not the whole OOB. I'd say just follow standard MILHIST practice, but definitely remove the second link in the body of the text. Standard wiki policy is only link the first time. Sorry for my goof.Rlevse 15:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The infobox and OOB were there before I started editing the article and I just didn't connect the two. I'll see about removing the OOB. Thanks. --FactotEm 15:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Noway419

If you recall, on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard you resolved this complaint I brought up. Well it appears that an IP address, 24.92.28.8 is making the exact same edits, which leads me to suspect that it is the user trying to aviod his ban. Is there any way that you can inforce the ban? – Zntrip 03:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I left them both warnings.Rlevse 09:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears that the user has created a sock puppet to continue his frivolous crusade. The new user name is Thistime19. – Zntrip 00:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nehrams2020 RfA Thanks

Thank you for your participation in my RfA, which closed successfully with unanimous support. I appreciate you taking the time to stop by and vote and I can't wait to learn the new tools and further immerse myself into Wikipedia! Please don't hesitate to point out any errors I make so I can prevent them from occurring again. I'm always here to help, so if you ever need anything, just let me know. Also, thanks to Wizardman for nominating me and for guiding many other editors to become admins. Again, thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 06:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Edokter RfA

Dear Rlevse, Thank you for your participation in my Request for Adminship, which ended succesfully with 26 supports, 3 opposes and 1 neutral. A special thanks goes to Rlevse for nominating me. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA. Please do not hesitate to point out any errors I will make (unintentionally of course), so I won't make them again. Please contact me if you need anything done, that's what I'm here for! — Edokter • Talk • 12:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Philmont task force

Thanks for the message! I will look into fixing the userbox issue this week. Best, Johntex\^talk 14:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof

Sorry, the VP program seems to be having a rather high number of bugs lately; I apologize for error. I am new to VandalProof, but I am beginning to think that it is more trouble than it is worth; however, it seems to be able to faciliate a lot of actions if the bugs were only corrected. Again, sorry for the error. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA Question

Hiya Rlevse. Just a heads up. The RfA you refer to in the question for Alex/Giggy/DHMO was created weeks ago but transcluded today. e.g. Giggy was under his old user name back then. I'd suggest pulling that question .......... Pedro |  Chat  21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The nom has been sat there for a while !! [1]. It fooled me too! I though Giggy had gone back to his old name or something until I checked the history. No issue though. Cheers my man, and thanks .Pedro |  Chat  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote box

I have created an updated version of {{quote box}}; it is sandboxed at User:Gadget850/T1, with testcases at User:Gadget850/T1/testcases. When this goes live, my intent is to update the tables in Frederick Russell Burnham and in Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America). Play with it and see what you can break. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting and nice.Rlevse 22:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes— I think we should use templates over raw tables when possible. They are simpler for novices to use and make it easier to make updates. I think I'm starting to figure out templates. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The tables can be hard to read.Rlevse 00:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Eagle list

I updated the DESA list cites using {{cref}}— please let me know what you think. It cleared out 2.7k and looks a lot nicer. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW- it looks like the developers extended cite.php to allow refs up to zz now (it crapped out at lz before. See User:Gadget850/Sandbox5. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I mostly like it, mainly because it reduces file size, an issue in that article, and takes less space. It showing separate from the other refs is no big deal. The one thing I don't like is there's no way to go from one to the next one, not by searching nor by clicking (you can't click on a, then b, then c, etc.).Rlevse 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that- you can pop down to the ref, but there is no backlink. I don't think it is a major issue, as readers will probably only check it once. It certainly cleans up the references list- that line of a to z was rather ugly. Always something new to learn around here. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I kind of like doing that sometimes. Why can't we have everything-;)Rlevse 22:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry about girl scout redirect

Sorry about that. It looked like an obvious oversight to me. --Allen 01:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Carson

Thanks for your suggestions on Rachel Carson. After similar comments from other reviewers, I removed the quote. Also, the sections before Silent Spring ended up expanding in the course of addressing other people's criticisms. I hope you get a chance to return to the FAC; I look forward seeing what other issue you find. Cheers--ragesoss 02:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

DP-Scouts

Phips started a workshop for this article at User:Phips/workshop/DP-Scouts, I've added to it, we could use your practiced help! :) Thanks, Chris 02:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Remind me if I don't get to it in a day or two.Rlevse 09:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Survey results
Wikimedia announces plans to move office to San Francisco	WikiWorld comic: "Ambigram"
News and notes: Times archives, conferences, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Scouting in Austria

Just created, you wanted to know when there were new ones. Chris 03:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Manzanar

Looks like you and I were posting at nearly the same time...I just responded to your last message. :-) -- Gmatsuda 20:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Request in place

[2] Thegoldenageoftheflyingspaghettimonster 20:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Guidelines

Here is the guideline that says projects can have guidelines: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. There are no guidelines as to how to implement this. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to remember this. Maybe we should drop it on Radiant!'s talk page.Rlevse 23:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

If we are not using {{Scouting Barnstar}}, then we should delete it. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Done.Rlevse 13:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: HarveyCarter

User:SueBrewer

Hi, Rlevse. Do you think this editor is a sock evading a block? She has been editing for less than 24 hours, but seems pretty familiar with the place, tossing around terms like POV in a way you wouldn't expect from someone who just showed up yesterday. Of course, she could previously have been editing anonymously, but on the other hand I note that User:IP4240207xx placed a sock notice on her page -- which another editor rightly removed, but I wondered if it might not have been an accurate accusation even if the claim that the user was a confirmed sock blocked indefinitely was false.

Had you seen this diff, incidentally, when you decided on the length of the block?

Cheers. --Rrburke^(talk) 16:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I hadn't seen that diff, thanks for pointing it out. I'll extend to 1 month. I think she could well be a sock, but I'm no expert at proving that. Feel free to help on that-;) Rlevse 16:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the editor's contribs and those of his known socks and compare them to User:SueBrewer's and see if anything jumps out. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

She? Please see: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:HarveyCarter

Please leave input there. Thanks, IP4240207xx 20:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You said that Sue's edits overlap?

• HaroldCartwright last edit: 20:28, 27 September 2007
• SueBrewer first edit: 15:59, 28 September 2007

Sue starts the next day after Harold is found out and blocked. IP4240207xx 21:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...IP4240207xx —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Exhibit - SEE: User:HarveyCarter - the "Edits by User and Date" section

IP4240207xx 22:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:DaveyJohnson

He's back...:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/HarveyCarter (6th)‎
• DaveyJohnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

IP4240207xx 21:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we both know that he'll be back with a new user name. At what point do we find out what IP range these 27 accounts were created from, and either block that IP range, or set up an automated trigger to alert someone that a new account, or edits from the IP range, are being made? Thanks for all your help. IP4240207xx 22:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I THINK it was because the autoblock wasn't set on the main account (which I've now set), but now I've done about all I can as the IP checking is way out of my expertise area. If the problem continues, you'll need to ask someone more experienced in IP stuff or file at WP:RFCU. Rlevse 22:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I know, we'll have to go higher, but I thought you were closer to the top than I am. You're taller. Thanks again. IP4240207xx 22:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:SarahLover

SarahLover (talk · contribs), nothing in the block log. He/she/it/T is still active and making edits. IP4240207xx 18:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm asked another admin to come help as this is really getting over my head, I'm not very good at sock stuff, but I'll help where I can. Please understand. Rlevse 01:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

See [| here]. Rlevse 02:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I see you already put in a CU request. That's good. you need special rights to run a CU, it's like becoming an admin, sort of. I can't run a CU. HOpe it works out. One good thing about this is I'm understanding how to ID socks better, that others are now joining in to stop him is good too. Rlevse 02:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin

That's very kind; I have not been nominated before. I am interested, but I wonder if it's premature. I know I've been around a while and have a fairly high edit count, but a lot of these are semi-automated vandalism reverts and attendant talk-page notices using Twinkle. I've participated in a handful of Afd's and done some incredibly tedious work like adding geographical coordinates to articles and Wikiproject banners to talk pages and gnoming, but where I feel I'm lacking is in substantial article-namespace contributions.

The main reason for taking up these boring but easy tasks is time: it's easy to revert low-hanging vandalism or add coords when I'm at my desk really doing something else. Making substantial contributions to articles takes more time and concentrated effort, and the former always seem to be in short supply.

It seems to me I'd make a better candidate if I were to create a few more articles, make some more substantial contributions to existing articles and get a little more comfortable with image-related policies. Maybe I'm overthinking this -- I don't know. If you had any advice, I'd be pleased to receive it. Thanks again. --Rrburke^(talk) 17:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're overthinking it. As some say, there's never a good time for RFA because you never know what'll happen, so just go for it. I just nominated User:Edokter and he was successful though he only had 2900 total edits, about 1100 in mainspace, you have over 5000 and 2200, respectively. Check out his RFA and get back to me here, but I'd say go for it if you're at all interested.Rlevse 17:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Overthinking things is my special gift :). The User:Edokter RfA is certainly encouraging, but the kind of thing I'm concerned about is it going something like this, although that turned out alright in the end.

Excuse me for being dense, but just to be sure: are you offering to nominate me? If not: oops, red face. If so, I'm grateful, flattered and certainly interested: how would it seem to you if I took a few weeks to bump up my participation in a couple of areas where I feel I'm lacking and then see if you're still of a mind to nominate me?

By the way,

Hwæt. We Gardena in gear-dagum,

þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,

hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

--Rrburke^(talk) 03:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

What's that, Old English? I can't make it out, just a few words because I know some German. Did you see my edits to Beowulf or something? Yes, I'm offering to nominate you. Here's what my nominator told me "There are two sides of the "namespace balance" argument...Some auto-oppose anyone who doesn't have 500 kazillion article edits and some auto-oppose anyone who doesn't have 500 kazillion edits to xFD debates. They are both extreme end of the spectrum positions.." RFA is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you'll get. Piling on is a a concern, but you don't know what will happen before the nom. This is why I said there's never a good time. I'd say just let me know when you're ready and I'll nominate you.Rlevse 11:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes: it's the first three lines of Beowulf. I saw you'd added Nicholson and took you for an Anglo-Saxonist -- the lines were intended as a secret handshake.

OK, thanks. I really appreciate the offer and will get back in touch when I'm ready. If any advice occurs to you in the meantime, it'd all be gratefully received. Cheers. --Rrburke^(talk) 12:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a Beowulf expert; I'm editing because someone who helps me copyedit asked me to help him on Beowulf. What I like to think I'm good at is getting articles to FA, mainly formatting, refs, layout etc. I have 11 FA's I'm a major part of now. What do those lines mean? Something about friendship I think. Let me know when you're ready.Rlevse 12:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Literally, it says,

What! We of the Spear-Danes in old days

of the people-kings, power heard,

how the princes brave deeds did.

It sort of means,

Listen!

We have heard of the glory in bygone days

of the folk-kings of the spear-Danes,

how those noble lords did lofty deeds.

But, as they say, the poetry is the part that gets lost in translation. --Rrburke^(talk) 13:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Being an admin, you really need to watch things like swearing: cussing like drunk sailors unprovoked in very uncivil edit summaries. Rlevse 11:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there.

For the two years that I've been an Admin, I've carried out my duties with pride. I'll state here explicitly that I will never use the Admin tools to harm Wikipedia in any way whatsoever.

Nevertheless, there are many aspects of Wikipedia that really exasperate me, one of which is POV pushing into articles about pop singers. You need to worry about the fact that idiots add crap (yes, I said "crap") like, "the album spent a mammoth 99 weeks in the top 100," rather than the fact that I use "oh shit," "god-damn it," or "what the fuck" on extremely rare occasions to express my frustration.

There are far more worrying things about Wikipedia than the fact that I occasionally use Pg-13, and not G-rated, edit summaries.

And patronizing editors with misplaced concerns is another aspect of Wikipedia that I grow weary of. Orane (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not patronizing other users. You should realize that incivility is not appropriate by anyone, much less an admin. If wiki exasperates you, you either need to change the way you deal with it or find another outlet. Rlevse 01:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see a problem here. You go through the thousands and thousands of contributions I have made to Wikipedia, and managed to find three or four instances of me expressing my anger (not directly to anyone in particular), and you think you're doing the project some benevolent favour by highlighting them. Well, it may come as a surprise to know that Admins are humans too. Orane (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This should be interesting. Sumoeagle179 12:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Hi, I'm making it a duty of mine to apologize to all those who I have offended this past few days. I make no excuse for my behaviour. I should tone down my edit summaries. I'll take the advise given me by my old friend KoS, and learn to deal with my frustration. I guess it comes with the responsibilities of being an Admin. I probably have painted a bad image of myself, but let me assure you that I'm nothing like that. Cheers. Orane (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. Rlevse 09:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Need advice

WP:RFC would probably be a good first step; all but the most recalcitrant of users will change their behavior in the face of widely-expressed discontent with it. Kirill 02:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles (album) edits

Your edit to The Beatles (album) included a few mistakes, some of which you fixed and some you did not. In particular, grammer/style rules evidently inspired changes to a direct quote that was not appropriate. Quotes should stay as written, poor grammar or not. In addition, "We'd" was changed to "We had" when it was a contraction of "We would", a bad idea in or out of a direct quote. If you are using a tool to make such edits, use it more carefully please. John Cardinal 03:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry.Rlevse 11:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

When commenting on ANI...

Please, for all our sakes, take a look at more backdrop than is presented in just the bare report. Suggesting that {{uw-agf3}} be given to a Neo-Nazi nutcase whom I've just blocked indef is not really helpful to anyone. When users come to us, as admins, with complaints, they have the right to expect that we research the situation in proper detail. Please bear this in mind. Thank you. Moreschi ^Talk 19:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Because someone else would have come by saying I was overreacting. Please keep this in mind, thank you.Rlevse 20:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Olga

I will try but give me some time. I think it will take about a week. Be prepared! Jpp.pl 22:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll just update the portal stuff from what I start with on 1 Oct. Thanks.Rlevse 22:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks, Rlevse! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers, hmwith talk 21:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Burnham ref

Here's what I pulled down on it via Google -- it's a Word document. [3] I'm sure there must be a better cite for this, it just seemed weird not to reference anyone, and this was all I could track down. BYT 13:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

HST

Want to make sure I know what I'm looking at. Is it this disagreement over the formatting on the cabinet box? [4] Question before the house is not related to text in article, I mean? BYT 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. but the one gadget came up with after I left you a note is fine with me.Rlevse 18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, cool. BYT —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Award

Hey Rlevse!
Congratulations on finding the page that does not exist. Here is your reward; you've earned it. User:Selfworm/HiddenLinkAward Congrats! selfworm^Talk) 01:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 3, Issue 40	1 October 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"	News and notes: Commons uploaders, Wikimania 2008/2009, milestones
Wikimedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Automatically delivered by COBot 02:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Promise

On my honor, I will try, To serve God, and my country, To help people at all times, And to live by the Girl Scout law.

Yeah, I'll have to look it over in the next few days, especially if someone is changing the pledge. I'm bogged with school now though. DarthGriz98 01:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to try and nominate it for Halloween for the main page since that's Low's birthday, it seems like a significant enough anniversary seeing how some people nominate dates because they just made FA and want it up there soon. Although, I can see why it may be hard getting it on that day due to it being Halloween. DarthGriz98 03:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is they are being anal retentive about only having 5 requests up at a time. DarthGriz98 15:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 21:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

THAT WAS ONLY 90 SECONDS AGO FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!Rlevse 21

55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Resistance is futile. The bots will assimilate you. --B 22:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

really, that's no joke either.Rlevse 22:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem user.

User:Thistime19 is make repeated and unneccessary edits to the article for the band The Used --Zero Cool 18:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, not vandalism. Vandalism goes to WP:AIV. Content disputes should be settled on the talk page. Page protection at WP:RFPP is an option. What exactly are you asking for?Rlevse 19:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Your message

Hi! Just now read your message. I have been away for way to long. I will try to get back and help. Cheers. Anagnorisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.82.147.39 (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

COBot Changes

Thanks, I wished I would have known about those conversations because I do not agree with their decission. I agree with the argument that some awards are relatively minor and don't rate to be a category but even in the case of the Medal of Honor with relatively few recipients the lists are extremely long and must be split up on multiple pages. If we create lists for recipients of the Air Medal which has many more recipients the lists may be thousands of members long or span a large number of pages. Too late now though I guess, just my 2 cents.--Kumioko 01:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

• Thank you for your message, at User talk:24.0.42.27. Can you please warn Rorybowman (talk · contribs) at his talk page ? Also, can you please delete the user page he inappropriately created in the first place, for User:24.0.42.27 ? Thank you for your time and your actions in this matter. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 12:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC).
  • I also have no idea what this edit is about, [5], but can you delete that page as well? Thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 12:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Done, that was strange. Rlevse 12:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• A block may be in order here, as Rorybowman (talk · contribs) did not just once attempt to expose an ID, but then reverted me after I removed this exposing info from the page, and put the exposing info back, a second time, with a disparaging remark about me, no less. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 12:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

If he does it again, now that he's been warned, let me know. Also let me know if he harasses you in anyway. The creation of the special contribs page makes me suspicious, but for now I'll try to assume good faith. Have you two been in a edit conflict or debate over something? Rlevse 12:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of, no. But his actions are indeed very troubling to me. However if you feel that (two) attempts to expose someone's offline identity do not warrant a block, I will not raise objections. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 12:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Generally, it is preferred one tries to talk to and/or warn on an issue before blocking. As the info is now only available to admins and he's been warned, I'd have no problem blocking on a next occurrence. I'm trying to find the official policy on this right now for more guidance. Rlevse 13:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

See my post to his talk page. Now that he no-doubt will know the seriousness of this, an indef block would be in line for a next vio. You may want to take a look at WP:Oversight and Wikipedia:Request for oversight. Rlevse 13:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 13:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

More serious, exposing identity in offline postings

• This is more serious than I had previously thought. Rorybowman (talk · contribs) (I am NOT trying to expose anyone's identity here myself, but the username is exactly the same as described in this profile) - is attempting to expose the offline identity of User:24.0.42.27, not just in Wikipedia postings, but also in offline blog postings and personal attacks, here - [6] (see the post of 09 August 2007 @ 07:24 pm, entitled "Wikipedia".) Relevant text of that post (though there are links in the text to identifying contributions on Wikipedia: "Then that RickRossIsAdick.com guy made fun of me on Wickedpedia so I had to go all John Mackey on his ass and defend my good name." Something should be done about this, this smacks of online and offline harassment, in my opinion, but I would imagine must be a violation of policies. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 20:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Good info and aids the case, but it was back in August. Rlevse 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It may have been back in August, but it does appear that the postings themselves continue as recently as October 5, 2007. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 20:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

I don't see a privacy issue in that one. Rlevse 20:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• • It also appears that here, Rorybowman (talk · contribs) does not seem to care one wit about your warning to him. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Definitely of concern, but he's not done any more privacy exposures that I can see. Rlevse 20:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that monitoring is best at the moment, okay. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 20:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

This is a new area for me, so I've asked for input from other admins at WP:AN#Request_input_on_privacy_vio_case, you may want to keep an eye on it.Rlevse 20:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, thank you. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Still a problem with this user

• Hello sorry to trouble you. DIFF. Thanks for your time. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC).
  • Also could you please delete that user's user page, again? This user never created his/her own user page, so it is inappropriate for someone else to do so. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 03:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC).

Done, and sternly warned user.Rlevse 13:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Again, and thank you so much for your attention to this serious matter, but I am concerned that at what point does this type of inappropriate behaviour, recreating a user page after being warned already, and continually attempting to violate privacy of anons, warrant a block on Wikipedia ? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 19:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC).
  • There are two separate things going on here, a) the privacy issues--I have not seen any posted since the warning on this and b) add stuff to the user page (albeit an anon IP). This case could go to ArbCom and when I asked for other admin input, one consistent thing was to make sure the warnings were all in order. We don't want it backfiring, afterall. Has he violated privacy rules since 13:17, 7 October 2007 or has he added to the user page since 13:16, 9 October 2007? I have not found any, if you have, by all means let me know. If there are privacy pieces left from before that, they can be deleted, like I deleted the anon IP user page. Part of this is that I have not handled such a case before--my admin experience is mostly in vandalism, username violations, 3RR, etc. Rlevse 20:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • You make very good points, and thank you for the warnings, I just don't think they have done very good or made an impression so far, if you follow the user's behavior. A block may be what is needed to stop this type of inappropriate behavior and activity on Wikipedia related to his determination to expose someone's offline identity - and, as I have shown above, even going so far as to have an off-line blog that does the same pattern of inappropriate behavior. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC).
      • If they haven't done any good, what has he done since then? It seems you're saying he's doing the same things. Can you provide links?Rlevse 22:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
• Oh. I thought I already had above, he attempted to investigate and reveal identity of an anon user once, then was warned, then did it again, then was warned, then denied it was wrong on a talk page, then was warned, then redirected the user page, then was warned ... Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC).

Guide to layout

I noticed you cited WP:GTL in a recent edit changing the order of appendices in Billings ovulation method. I think the change you made is fine, but just wanted to point out that the Guide leaves such things up to the discretion of editors. From Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions, Note 1: It is okay to change the sequence of these appendices. Lyrl^Talk _C 17:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

ya, but there's something to be said for consistency.Rlevse 17:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: WikiBreak

Hi there. I thought about removing it. But, I'm still going to be on very limited editing for at least the rest of the month. (RL)

The WikiBreak has been good to stave off burnout. While I've been gone, seems like Wikipedia feels different. Many more deletionists.

How's your WikiLife been?

— ERcheck (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Username policy

Hello, Rlevse. :) I see by your history that you contribute to WP:UAA. Another editor has approached me to ask about User:GM Chrysler. I have not had much experience with enforcing the username policy and hoped that I might either invite input from you or pass it over to an admin who has. It seems to me that the name may be in violation of username policy even though the individual is not using it to promote the company. While it is not a vandalism-only account, his efforts at [[Screw (disambiguation}]] are the sort of activity that could cause the company embarrassment. I'd be grateful for advice on how to proceed with this...or, as I said above, to bow out and let you handle it if you're so inclined. --Moonriddengirl 13:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is what I'd do in this case: ask him to change his name--you can use the template found at WP:UAA and WP:RFCN if you like, wait for a response--2 days is plenty. If he actually files for a name change, leave it at that. If not, report to WP:RFCN. Many similar cases have come up and they almost always get blocked if they don't file for a name change. While it is true so far he hasn't spammed, he has been uncivil and could embarrass the company. The username policy says names matching companies are not allowed especially if they spam. It doesn't say only if they spam. So spamming in such a case would guarantee a block, without spamming it is still highly likely. Hope this helps. Rlevse 14:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. :) I'll take it that way. --Moonriddengirl 14:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rlevse, it was I who requested Moon's help. I'm not sure how well the username change issue will fly with the user, he's not been exactly civil towards others in the brief time he's been registered (I was actually requested by someone else to look into his actions, lol) so we'll see what happens with that I guess. I would think that the huge name recognition with the name would be enough to just send it to WP:UAA, even if it isn't promotional or related to the company, just the fact that nearly every American would know exactly what that company is, should be enough to qualify for a disallow at UAA. But that's just how I thought about it. ~*Shrug*~ ^Ariel♥Gold 14:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You could try UAA and it may fly (diffeent admins will call things differently sometimes), the reason I went this route on this case is that a dialog was already started.Rlevse 14:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, understandable. It would be pretty rude to block him after he'd already been engaged in conversation by another editor, even if it wasn't related to the username. Thanks again, we'll see what happens with it. ^Ariel♥Gold 14:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Rlevse 14:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I've noticed this user tends to be active between midnight and 2am US CDT. I don't know about other times. And thanks to all for helping out with this issue, on all levels. --MikeVitale 14:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and dropped the tag on his page. Hope that's okay. Rlevse 14:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I got an edit conflict with my note, but as I said above I am perfectly happy for you to step in. :) I think your approach is a good one. The user's history shows some constructive edits and while his response at Screw (disambiguation) was decidedly uncivil, there's no reason to bystep ordinary procedure. --Moonriddengirl 14:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh hey, yes that's awesome, thank you! And hey while I've got your ear (euphemistically speaking), what happens when an editor who was blocked for an inappropriate username, requests to be unblocked to rename, which is granted, but then continues to edit under the very inappropriate username? I ran into that this morning as well, and didn't have anyone awake to ask about it, lol. And, another quick one I'm on the fence with: User:I Am Murderman. He's basically admitting he's a murderer? (WP:U re: relating to real life violence). That one threw me too, not sure what to do with it. ^Ariel♥Gold 14:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I reblocked the Fukhed66 and left a note on his talk page and blocked I Am Murderman as a vio of the violent act clause.Rlevse 14:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL You rock, thanks! I promise that's all I had saved up overnight for admin attention, so I'll stop bugging you now! Hee hee. Thanks again! ^Ariel♥Gold 14:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Poo thrasher

You banned Poo thrasher but User:Oh come on pulease seems to be his socket puppet.GordyB 16:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Poo thrasher was a username block and yes, the new one is obviously the same guy, but now there is the issue of trolling/vandalism. Let me look at it more. Rlevse 17:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Oh come on pulease. Rlevse 17:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Scout from Poland :)

Hi!

I think you are a scout :) Me too I am from Poland, and I have a task from my scout group I have to find a scout from USA or England, and talk with him about somethink:)

I hope you help me :)

My e-mail —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omiec (talk • contribs) 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

Wanted to make sure you were aware of the RFU at User_talk:Netmonger. I took a quick look and couldn't find anything egregious, just petty back and forth stuff. The prior blocks were noted as being an error (see the block log) and the "bearnstar" did look like a good faith effort to bury the hatchet. Please advise if I'm missing something. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  03:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if the email in this block is truly from him, the previous block was likely not an error. Mr.Z-man 03:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

These comments weren't exactly helpful either... [7], [8]. Dreadstar † 04:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The troll thing is tacky but hardly deserving of 72 hours on its own. The email issue seems to be unresolved. I hadn't seen the userbox though, and that makes it look more like a pattern deserving of a multi-day block. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks  05:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, responded on netmonger's page.Rlevse 10:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse! you have a too big heart, but it should reach others properly.Regentsstag 13:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The pattern is what concerned me too, there were no individual edits that were sufficiently egregious for a long block - and since the source of the email is up in the air, we'll have to see how things go moving forward - hopefully this will be the end of it. I think you handled this very well, Rlevse, showing good faith and understanding! Dreadstar † 16:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, both Regentsstag and Dreadstar Rlevse 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure! Dreadstar † 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I received another harassing e-mail from Netmonger. Would you like for me to forward it to you? Wiki Raja 19:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Do not delete the email until this is long over. Do two things: forward it to me, and also send it via reply, but attach the original email as a file. If you have Outlook, you do it by hitting reply, click attach, hit the drop box and select item, them select the original email. We need to preserve the header info. Rlevse 20:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

UAA

Hi Rlevse! Nobody seems to be manning the desk at WP:UAA, can you pop over and take a look if you've got a minute, pretty please? It has been an hour since the last activity. Ariel♥Gold 20:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Got it. I totally agree. And I always agree with everything m'lady ArielGold has to say anyway....;) Dreadstar † 21:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you set me in the right direction?

It's always been difficult for me to navigate through Wikipedia. When I have certain questions or concerns to be brought up I'm never quite sure where to ask or to bring it to attention. I do not know about you in particular (except that you might know your way around here), but how were you able to find your feet here and know where to go/what to do to make a difference and be productive. Could you point me to any place in particular where I can get some answers on a number of general questions?

Thanks for your time Shimdidly 02:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Help_desk, Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User or just strike up a relationship with some user you like. Personally, I did it through the school of hard knocks. Let me know if you have more questions. Where did you notice me? Rlevse 10:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Your blocking of User:God doesn't exist

The user name probably warrant a block, but it might not be appropriate for you to block it. As both you and the user are involved in the RFCN/GodDelusion debate for the very reason of your block, your blocking of that account might appear as a conflict of interest. SYSS Mouse 02:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm ... why? Blocking or banning a user to gain an advantage is one thing, but this is a technical violation - that person is free to edit and comment on that RFC - just not with this name. There is nothing wrong with Rlevse making the block. --B 03:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern SYSS Mouse, but that was reported to WP:UAA, which I patrol regularly and it's an obvious violation. However, B is correct, the block was not used to gain any sort of advantage. See also the comment by Mangojuice on the closing of this at WP:RFCN. The block was for vio of the name policy, not it's participation at RFCN. If you look at his contribs, it's obvious it was a troll account. You may also want to see the stmt ArielGold made when she put it at UAA.Rlevse 09:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

SYSS Mouse, so you don't have to dig for it, you can view my report here. I ran across the name during recent changes patrol, and it is a name that would make it nearly impossible to have harmonious editing, especially given the editor's contributions. I reported it without a moment's hesitation, but I do truly appreciate your diligence in making sure there was no conflict of interest. I can assure you that I did not confer with Rlevse prior to submitting the name to WP:UAA, and was unaware of any prior interaction between the two of them. I hope that helps explain the issue. Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 18:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

I am sorry you felt it necessary to oppose my recent RfA, which did not succeed. I will attempt to get more experience in the main namespace and will try again for RfA in two month's time. I hope I will have satisfied your concerns by then, but if not, please comment as you feel you should. Thanks for participating in my RfA. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 07:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Willieboyisaloser

Rlevse, Willie boy is my pet name, and i do not take offence at it. I have dyspraxia and i often refer to myself as a loser. i am not clinically depressed so it is not insulting. I quite like it actually. Would you prefer i was called jaffa cake? Peace out. (Willieboyisaloser 17:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

I don't know what that jaffa cake means, but if "...is a loser" is okay with you, okay. But you're not a loser, you may want to change it. Rlevse 17:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A jaffa cake is an item of confectionery with a chocolate cover and an orange centre made of something or other. Go figure. PS I am not changing the username!!!!!!!!!!!!!! even if it doesnt fit the wikipedia standards. (Willieboyisaloser 17:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC))

Minivans.

Hey man, I have a couple of issues that you many need to resolve with the GM Minivan vandal.

First of all, I forgot about the page Saturn Relay. he is also pushing his POV there, I simply forgot about it. Could you semi protect it?

Second, because of the the nature of this guy, one week semi-protection simply isn't enough. When he was pushing his POV and editwarring with different Ips at Opel Sintra, I got the page semi protected for a week. He simply waited the semi protection out and went back to POV pushing there. On that note, I think that all these pages need indefinite semi protection if we want this guy to finally stop, as he seems to be really determined to gloss up the GM minivan's pages. When we think he has finally done, then we can remove the protection. Karrmann 10:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

HOw long has this been going on?

Greengreg (talk · contribs)

Thank you for doing that. I appreciate it. :) GreenJoe 17:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Patrol vs. unit

Hello, I didn't know where to post this question, but seeing how I usually get my answers from you I thought I might post it here. Is there any difference between a scout patrol and a scout unit? /Natox 18:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about the rest of the world due to all the different organization structures and terms in use, but in the BSA, a unit means either a Cub Scout Pack, Boy Scout Troop, Venture Crew, Varsity team, or Sea Scout Ship; in other words a single functioning group with its own boy and adult leaders. A patrol specifically refers to a Boy Scout Troop's subdivisions. A Boy Scout Troop splits the boys into patrols of 6-8 boys each and uses BP's Patrol method. A troop could have from one to several patrols. The Cub Scout equivalent of a patrol is a den. Does this help?Rlevse 18:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)...troops, packs, etc form districts, districts form councils, etc. Rlevse 18:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it helped, I think. But it raised another question, what is the difference between a Scout Group and a Scout Troop/Pack? /Natox 20:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, could you say that the different units (troops, packs, patrols etc.) forms Scout Groups consisting of one or more units. Then the Scout Groups form Scout Districts that forms a scout association. If I'm totally wrong, purhapse you could explain it like som sort of hierarchy? /Natox 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A) A patrol is not a scout unit, it's part of a troop. B) Scout Group is a British term, it's not used in America. I had the same question once and asked a British Scout Leader. See the thread here. There's no BSA equivalent of a Scout Group, but interestingly the GSUSA is built very similar to the Britsh system. Less confused? Rlevse 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

E. Urner Goodman

Greetings, Rlevse - It's been awhile now since E. Urner Goodman was last reviewed. I've done a major rewrite to address some of the previous shortcomings, hopefully it can be upgraded from B Class. Let me know what you think. Regards, JGHowes ^talk - 02:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)