User talk:Rlevse

This user is a Clerk of the Arbitration Committee.

This user is a Bureaucrat.

This user is a checkuser.

——————————————— 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

Eagle Scout

Your article says you made Eagle Scout in 1971, but your CV says 1973. Your official date is your Eagle BOR date. Which date is correct? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had deleted that page years ago! It was in 1971, June 7. Henrydoktorski (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NTWW 33

It's up now. Sorry it took so long, but I've been really ill, and facing down a 3-hour editing job was not wsomething I was looking forward to. Finally did it in little chunks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Sorry you were sick. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth file should be there now. I set it up while Sunderland was uploading them for me. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it. The link should be to Image:NTWW_33-4.ogg, if that helps. Try purging the page. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's blue. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good. Because that's the part that involves you, you know, so it'd be embarrassing if I cheerily told you I had everything working, and then couldn't get your contribution to work =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Powers ABOVE an administrator

I have read something interesting on Wikipedia:VANDALISM#How_not_to_respond_to_vandalism, and it mentions something about users with special powers who can can edit page histories. Can you tell me more about these users? -- IRP ☎ 01:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

administrators can merge histories but I don't know of anyone that can actually edit a history and I don't see where it says that in the link you gave. Admins can delete pages, block users, grant rollback rights and a few other rights to users, and protect pages. Bureaucrats can flag bots, promote users to admin, and rename users. I'm an admin and a bureaucrat. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a reference to oversight - Alison ^❤ 03:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ya. Oversight is a separate bit right, which I do not have. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan Tamil people

Hi Rlevse. Unfortunately I won't be able to do any sort of in-depth copy-editing until at least Sunday, more likely the middle of next week. Even what I've done so far is superficial; I haven't had the time to comb through the text thoroughly. Sorry about this; real life is consuming me right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, you've volunteering. If it fails this time, it gives you more time to work on it for next round. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock input

As you were the CU who blocked FBD, please provide input here User_talk:Spacefarer. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I only blocked one account and left the other, but they are definitely the same and edited the same topic. Tiptoety decided to block the other, effectively banning the guy, which is his choice. One was about Landmark, and the other about its owner. There is an overlap. YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 05:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TTN

Does this mean that the 6 month restriction was restarted from the time of the block? And if not, why not? - jc37 23:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Where in the arbcase does it say something about the 6 month ban restarting? — Rlevse • Talk • 03:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't inherent in any topic ban? A ban of 6 months would seem to imply that it's an uninterrupted ban.

And if not, what's to stop someone from gaming the system? - jc37 05:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being dense, but could you be specific as to the case you're talking about, with details? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking in general. (And was asking you because you were one of those who has blocked a user who was under such a topic ban.)

If someone has a topic ban for a length of time, should it not be presumed that that is intended to be a uninterrupted topic ban, and that if the person violates the ban (even to the point of being blocked for it), that then the duration should "start over"? - jc37 18:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Bans are reset if the sanctions specify that or if they've shown little progress, but it's not a given that if they get blocked one time the ban is automatically reset in all cases. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I can see the fairness in that especially since a each incidence may be different.

At this point, if I have concerns, should I ask arbcom for a clarification? And to be honest, I'm not sure in reading the various pages if the user is "in violation" of the spirit of the case or not. (The user came off the ban to immediately start nominating episode pages again. Though I have not checked the exact dates to confirm when such nominations began.)

My goal here is to prevent disruption, and obviously making accusations may not be helpful, when all I'm looking for atm is a clarification.

What would you suggest? - jc37 21:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Warn him firmly one time, that if he continues in this behavior, you'll reinstate the ban. Be polite but firm and willing do it. You don't need arbcom to get involved. I recently did this in the John Buscema case, reinstated a ban on my own. If nothing else, you can call it topic ban on general admin action. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has actually already gone back for clarification given TTN started deleting content from the minute his ban expired. The arbitrators felt he had not broken any editorial process since his ban, and he was free to remove content he felt was not verifiable or notable. The problem with his behaviour before the ban was his edit warring and incivility. I don't think this has started up again which is why the arbs felt he was doing ok. The ban simply can't be reinstated without arbcom or a good community consensus. So far arbcom have said he's doing nothing wrong, so the best bet would be to seek communal input and suggest an editing restriction. I'm not sure you'll get a consensus within the community to do this though - opinions characters and episodes are extremely contentious and both sides feel quite strongly about it. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point but we can reinstate the ban, there's precedent for that as I've said, and it'd avoid all the drama of a windy debate. He's had his chance, he didn't get it, so let's avoid the inevitable hot air. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can't really reinstate an arbcom ban when arbcom don't think he's doing anything wrong. I personally do have issues with his behaviour, but he's certainly not doing the main thing he was banned for (edit warring and incivility). As I said, a new request for clarification or community restriction would be the best way forward if Jc feels strongly about it - it's not one for doing alone. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've not looked into the merits of the request, ie, what TTN is doing, all I'm saying is we can reinstate the ban without going to arbcom, as I said above, if he continues in this behavior. I guess I wasn't clear enough on that. A topic ban can also be done on general admin rules for long term disruption, no arbcase at all is needed for that. In such a case the question would be is this long term disruption. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but one admin can't really ban TTN on there own as I'm sure many others would disagree that he's doing anything wrong. In seriously contentious cases like this, it should go on a noticeboard for deliberation. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a problem with all these long-term disputes: John Buscema, Episodes and Characters, all the various ethnic disputes on wiki, SA-MP, etc....there's always someone willing to defend the disruptors. Sometimes you have to be bold and just go do it. I'm not saying this is or is not such a case as I haven't looked into the details but my personal rule of thumb if they've been at each other over a year and still can't come together cooperatively to build the encyclopedia instead of constantly pointing fingers at each other, then stern, bold, unilateral measures are justified. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification of options.

I wasn't looking to take any sort of "immediate action", just was pursuing information, atm.

(Research, 3PO, and sometimes further consensus, are, at times, some of my preferences before "taking action".)

All that said, I have a feeling that this is going to be watched by others besides me, so I'm going to presume that (hopefully) things will stay "within bounds".

Anyway, thanks again for your help : ) - jc37 09:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another vandal

Please look into this: Special:Contributions/76.238.82.210. -- IRP ☎ 03:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warned by me too. Report to WP:AIV if he persists. I'm going to bed. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Bongomatic is being slightly disruptive.

User: Runningonbrains, has removed the deletion tag from storm train, and said that the deletion request was not appropriate for the article. So, User:Bongomatic tries to war, and he/she puts it back. Do you think that the article should be reverted, and "protected, until disputes have been resolved"? -- IRP ☎ 14:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to see storm train page history. -- IRP ☎ 14:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if it happens again. In the meantime save the article to your puter so if it's deleted you can merge the data. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK to put it in User:IRP/ArticleArchive, where I plan to place articles I create until they are revised? -- IRP ☎ 15:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I did save the article to my desktop as "Storm train article backup.txt". -- IRP ☎ 15:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, such a page in user space is also called a sandbox and it's okay to work on articles there before they go to main space. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get my Template:ArchivedArticle to show up correctly on my archived article. -- IRP ☎ 15:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the code directly in. Why it messes up on template usage I don't know. Ask User:AGK, he's good at this stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I must mention that I'm glad that Bongomatic is not an administrator. Oh boy, would Wikipedia be devastated! He/she would have deleted a whole truckload of articles, and probably would have spoiled the site. Luckily all he/she can do is propose and nominate for deletion, and not delete freely! -- IRP ☎ 03:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?

Do you think that the article I created, storm train, should be deleted? -- IRP ☎ 18:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm letting you know that I also backed up shouting match, to keep it safe. -- IRP ☎ 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think storm train should be merged to that more comprehensive article. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Training (meteorology)? Better, there should be a paragraph about it in that article, and at the top of the section, there should be: Main article: Storm train. -- IRP ☎ 20:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Storm train has several times more page views than Training (meteorology). So obviously, when storms train, it is usually known as a storm train. -- IRP ☎ 20:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a similar example: in the article thunderstorm, there is a paragraph about a supercell, and a link to the main article. So in this case, there should be a paragraph about storms (in training [meteorology]), and a link to the main article. A supercell is a type of thunderstorm, and storm training is a type of training. You may also want to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storm train. -- IRP ☎ 20:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query

I think it would be appropriate to place a neutrally worded notice to relevant article talkpages regarding the socks involved with these Landmark Education/Werner Erhard articles that were confirmed from the recent checkuser case, with a link back to the checkuser case page. Does that sound okay? Cirt (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny

Funny how the silly, apparently non-controversial matters seem to be the ones that blow up the worst, such as Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Xinunus. Jehochman ^Talk 15:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usurp

Hi Rlevse; I've left a comment at the usurpation page. If you could tender to it, it'd be much appreciated. Thanks. Caulde 22:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jvolkblum

Thanks for filing the new Jvolkblum socks at RFCU, especially the cross-wiki filing for the Commons users. Since I think the behavior patterns are pretty obvious, some of the socks have not edited recently enough to show up in a CU, and some of my past RFCUs for Jvolkblum did not result in blocking until someone followed up at SSP, I guess I thought it more appropriate to post the case at SSP. (I believe I understand why RFCU and SSP are still separate, but in cases like this it would be nice to consolidate the two noticeboards...) BTW, I still haven't finished documenting the case... --Orlady (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re on your page. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(In reply to comment on my talk page): Glad to know that. I was aware that the proposed merger was being discussed (I may even have commented on it), but I had not followed the discussion lately, and inferred that the proposal must have died. Glad to hear that I guessed wrong. --Orlady (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated vandalism

User:69.133.114.150, has done repeated vandalism, and has posted the same vandalistic material at several places on Wikipedia, particularly Cartoon Network (United States). Here is the material. -- IRP ☎ 03:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 weeks. YOu'll get faster response on the noticeboards like WP:AIV when I'm not around. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artsakh

Hi and thanks for you intervention, protecting Artsakh could perhaps help to cool off. But I don't think I have done anything worth for any restrictions and I think you are treating me unjustified for the second time. Grandmaster and others were just vandalizing the Artsakh page, this is not only my opinion, since Til Eulenspiegel, an impartial user, warned those users 3 times [1] [2] [3] that they were engaging an original synthesis and that it had even no connection with the topic of the article in question, yet they neglected him to. I hoped anyone who would react on Grandmaster's accusation, would first inspect the talkpages Mihranids, Albania & Artsakh and see how those Users every time try to "attest" an obviously wrong idea and threat me not to remove it from the article. Although it would be just the the reverse: dubious and unclear statements would not been added until they are verified and this refers also to a map. In this case I am under restrictions while Gransmaster is only "warned". I think this unfair accusation had the only purpose to terrorize me. And I'm not going accept it, Please tell me how I can appeal against it and also what do imply AA/AA2 restrictions. Thanks. --Vacio (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster thinks you were vandalizing it and he thinks you were. You were warned twice so you can't say you weren't aware. I'm sure you can see the problems that creates for us admins who are only trying to get users to cooperate instead of constantly bickering over whose version of an article is the "correct" one. I am totally neutral in this too. You can appeal to arbcom but I've saved you the trouble and asked them to look at this already-I did this just a few minutes ago. Also, they're about to release new guidelines for handling nationalistic disputes any day now. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note...arb mbr responded to this on Vacio's talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANI appeal

I'm appealing what I consider to be your bad decision here on ANI. You have offered nothing more than a personal commentary and a very much skewed view on the issue at hand. I suggest you rescue yourself and request alternative opinions. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They seem pretty reasonable to me and have broad support across the community, on all sides. I'm not sure where the problem is here, other than that you don't like it - Alison ^❤ 19:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proposals had overwhelming support, including the one on you being on probation. The only real issue was the proposed probation on Sarah777, which I removed myself. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not one diff was offered by any of you to support the sanctions on me. While I will be appealing this, I will also raise the conduct of Admin’s on WP:RfC as I consider it to be less than satisfactory. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs are in the AE case. File appeals as you like, in fact, would you like me to help you? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah your alright thanks. I'll try get some advice first of editors with more experiance first? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't many editors with more than 60,000 edits, which I have, and if you mean admin experience, few have more admin actions than me. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, ask around all you'd like, the people at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#Current_Clerks are particularly skilled in interpreting ArbCom decisions. Also, feel free to file a Request for clarification, but do remember that you are under sanction until you hear otherwise at WP:AE or WP:RFAR, and I doubt there are any uninvolved admins who will be saying differently at AE. MBisanz ^talk 21:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final remedies

Quick question regarding the 'Final remedies'; only Domer and myself are mentioned; are these additions to something else? Are the original Tznkai remedies standing bar these changes? I'd be a bit disappointed if Domer alone was sanctioned and the only other mention was the "advice" to me. Is what appears in 'Final remedies' (linked above) the full ruling? Sarah777 (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The final remedies section is all that applies. If it's not mentioned there, it doesn't apply. I'm sorry you're disappointed. If you feel someone else should have been mentioned, I'm willing to discuss it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just interested to note that in an edit war I wasn't involved in and in which Domer wasn't the most blameworthy party, we end being the two who are mentioned when the dust settles. I'm not really surprised, to be honest. I have explained at length why and how this happens. Sarah777 (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to learn more you might look at the article on country known as Ireland, which goes in Wiki under the title given to it in the law of the former colonial power rather than the common, internationally recognised, constitutional and legal name. In such an environment it is hardly surprising that a perverse finding like this one appears, is it? Consensus = Anglo POV; on Wiki that is the beginning and the end of it. It would be nice if you'd at least concede that. Sarah777 (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured List contest

Hey Rlevse, this is IMatthew (talk · contribs), co-coordinator of the WikiCup; just informing you of the Featured List contest, starting this coming Friday. You may want to check it out; it will keep you busy for the time being before the WikiCup starts around January. Thanks for listening! iMatthew (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some sock's message on my talk page

A newbie left this dishonest message on my talk page and declared him/herself having watched me for a while.[4] I think this is his confession as himself as sock given the history of sock/meatpuppeter's appearance at the article. The user also altered the edit for Japanese POV [5][6] without any backingup references, discussion, or consensus which constitutes "falsification of the history". I believe the user is one of indef.socks by my report.

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa

Tanaka-san (talk · contribs), Que Sera Sera Sera (talk · contribs), Zerosen (talk · contribs), Honda-Hawk (talk · contribs), Hye-Hyun (talk · contribs). All are SPAs appearing the artricle to do the same thing. Could you look at these account and semi protect the article for a while? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right, so I indef blocked and tagged all of them. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sul request---droppilot

Im am actually the fr user and i would be glad to get my global account unified under this name. here is the link to the page

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Hey there. Well, the wait's over .... Congratulations!!!. I'm really delighted that you made it to the team. Well deserved indeed. However, no time for slacking - we've a backlog!! :) Looking forward to working with you - Alison ^❤ 03:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, good work! MBisanz ^talk 03:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all and I appreciate the support. — Rlevse • Talk • 06:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and likewise! -- Avi (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, I look forward to working with you! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grats, R :) Ariel♥Gold 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And my bit is now turned on! — Rlevse • Talk • 19:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! You're now a checkuser too! --Caspian blue (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. C. Deelman SUL request

The requester's existing account is J. C. Deelman (talk · contribs), with spaces between the initials, which is why nothing showed up for user:J.C.Deelman. I've left him a message to say sorry, but "JohnCD" is already taken. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tks, — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: off to a poor start

Thank you for this[7]. I admit I may have not added the sources in exactly the correct manner, but I still feel the mistake should have been corrected rather than throwing out the sources and labeling them "linkspam". I felt like I was ganged-up on by the regulars at these articles, though that does not excuse my outburst. I will continue reading Wikipedia policies, and think about returning here, in a different subject area. And I will remember your offer of assistance. Thank you again. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they just made a knee jerk reaction. Let me know if you need help. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harrassment by off and on-wiki

Hi, Rlevse. I need your attention and help. As I said, I've been watched by 2channel personnel for almost one year, and they've analazing my edits and stalking me, http://society6.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/korea/1218372119/ translation

However they recently even created a stalking site dedicated to me http://www3.atwiki.jp/apple-tree/

I feel so annoyed at their continued harassment and wikistalking even with the new site. The site clearly constitutes libel and harassment. Now, some SPA, Bukubku (talk · contribs) who first appeared after the AFD for South Korean cultural claims and has been trying to insert false information to Empress Myeongseong and obviously watches my talk page. The user has been taking over mesh.ad.jp IP user's edits Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Watermint (Watermint (talk · contribs)) Could you look at the obviously sock account and set some of Korean articles on your watchlist such as Baekje, Gaya, Goguryeo, Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea, Anti-Korean sentiment, History of Korea, Korea under Japanese rule? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will work this, give me another day or two. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a useful link that I stumbled upon: Wikipedia:Attack#Off-wiki_attacks. -- IRP ☎ 22:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser-wise, the IPs involved are highly dynamic and span 3 of Japan's biggest ISPs. There is not a narrow enough range for an effective range block. Accounts can be blocked based on behavior without checkuser, indeed checkuser is almost worthless as there are almost no distinguishing features in the IP usage or user agent to make an identification. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-prot'd the articles and warned Bukubku. As for socking, please put together a SSP report with diffs and reasons and the master account rather than making blanket sock accusations. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please change redirect

Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism should redirect to Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism, not to Wikipedia:Vandalism. The # symbol in the URL determines the section shown. You will see when you click the links. -- IRP ☎ 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for implementing the change. -- IRP ☎ 23:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could have done that yourself. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, it is currently protected to where only administrators can edit it. -- IRP ☎ 00:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't notice that. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Ashton being disruptive

Rlevse, Gerry Ashton is being disruptive to make a point. Here on WT:MOSNUM, there is a debate about bringing the formatting of numbers on some of Wikipedia’s mathematics articles into conformance with the rest of Wikipedia’s articles on our technical and applied mathematics articles. The details of the dispute are arcane, but it essentially is debate over delmiting long numbers so they can be parsed easily, such as 2.718281828.

The tone of Gerry’s tenor in the debate on WT:MOSNUM has escalated this morning so he hauled off and posted these two notices on my talk page announcing that he was nominating two templates for deletion.

You should know that the {val} template was extensively discussed long ago on MOSNUM (here on Archive 94) and was further discussed on WT:MOS (here on Archive 97). In both cases, there was a broad-based consensus that the envisioned template {{delimitnum}} was a good and it was well-received by the community. This all transpired in February of this year. The only thoroughly disaffected editor who opposed the template was Gerry (here on MOSNUM Archive 94). He hated the idea and tried to block it with the suggestion that a consensus should also have to be obtained on WT:MOS. Well, a while later—as I mentioned above—that is precisely what eventually happened; I later noticed an issue there about the formatting of scientific notation and told them of what had been discussed on WT:MOSNUM. We had a great discussion that resulted in a tweak to the proposed template. The clear consensus in both venues was that it was a good idea.

Note: The {{delimitnum}} template never worked well for long strings and much greater favor was found with a {{val}} template created by SkyLined. The {val} template is used in a wide variety of Wikipedia’s articles and is used extensively on Kilogram, which just received GA status. The deletion of {val} would be terribly disruptive. The template can also be used to create values in what is known as “concise form” like h = 6.62606896(33)×10⁻³⁴ J·s. This is the same, SI-compliant way the NIST shows the value (see example). We need this tool.

Now Gerry, who has long opposed these templates (he wrote “I oppose this proposal on the grounds that it is a bastard.” ) [8] knows full well that these templates were well-received in the community and that the templates—particularly {val}—are used extensively in Wikipedia’s articles. This is simply disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. May I ask your assistance in this manner. The nominations are as follows:

Here for val and…
Here for delimitnum

I ask that Gerry be sanctioned for this move. He knew full well this move would be highly disruptive. Greg L (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely belive the Val and Delimitnum templates should be deleted. The attention they are receiving in the MOSNUM debate might cause editors who do not fully understand the non-standard way these display numbers to use them in a greater number of articles, and make their eventual removal more difficult. I do not believe I should be sanctioned for an action that didn't damage anything, and expresses my view on the best course of action for Wikipedia. (By the way, do you like the way the number Template:Delimitnum looks? Have you ever seen someone group digits both with a space and with a comma in the same number? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the way, nor the venue, for what you are trying to accomplish. The record of how well received these templates are in the community is clear, I’ve cited the links above. There is no “debate” about these templates; only an editor who disagreed with the consensus view in two venues (MOS and MOSNUM), got angry this morning on a related issue, and went out of his way to disrupt Wikipedia and be a pure bother. This move is nothing but a pure case of WP:POINT. Greg L (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The MOSNUM debate has been going on far too long. If you've already been to mediation, then file arbitration as that's the only way I can see this ending. While some of this is content, there are behaviorial issues too. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Image_talk:Calliandra_flwr.jpg - I believe that this page should be deleted because it contains only 1 post that violates Wikipedia policy. -- IRP ☎ 22:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about new page

Hello Rlevse, I just created a page for Mogens Ellegaard and notice that for some reason his name appears in the categories (1935 births | 1995 deaths | Accordionists | Classical accordionists | Avant-garde accordionists) under the letter "D" instead of "E." Why is this? How to fix it? Henry Doktorski (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this. Apparently you copied stuff from the other persons article and forgot to change his name in the defaultsort line. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see now! Many thanks! Henry Doktorski (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]