User talk:Rlevse: Difference between revisions

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 – ...

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you back! --Oxymoron⁸³ 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Welcome back! -MBK₀₀₄ 19:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back! Dlabtot (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, welcome back. I just watch you for the most part, but I appreciate that you are willing to dig into those very complicated situations and come out with good solutions. Not everyone could do that, and it makes you a rare commodity here. Cheers, NoSeptember 19:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks to all of you for your support. It means a lot. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! It's great to see you back. (and you caused an edit conflict... :P) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth -- too many edit conflicts! seventh that, glad you're back. I was disheartened to see you (and Rudget) go. You and I were having a "back and forth" regarding the whole "rudget" stuff where we were disagreeing on his talkpage. Please note I was not intending that to be any personal slight against you and I hope I didn't overstep any boundaries or assume bad faith, as it was not my intention. If my comments over that situation had anything to do with your decision to go, (they may or may not, I have no idea) please let me know so I can atone and apologize in the right places. Regardless of why you left, I'm glad you're back! I'm personally hoping Rudget is reading this and reconsidering as well. You are both fantastic WP'ns. Cheers, Keeper | 76 19:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I warmly welcome your return, and hope we'll see Rudget back as well. Too good to lose, IMO. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really happy for your return!!!! Welcome!!!--Appletrees (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woo-hoo! Anthøny 19:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. Anthon01 (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Man, did I need a spirit-lifter right now :) Glad to see you're back. Wizardman 19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back mate :) Orderinchaos 19:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea that's right. I've replied here. <--- READ IT! Lara❤Love 19:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most delighted you are back. Thank you for reconsidering. You are sorely needed these days.(olive (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Good, good. D.M.N. (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone needs a Wiki-break once in a while. There ARE people who will try your patience, aggravate you, and even cross you on purpose sometimes. But there are also many great editors out here, that will work with you, back you up, and DO appreciate all that you do. You have to take the bad with the good, and sometimes step back from the keyboard, breathe, count backwards from 1,000, and say "bubble" between each number. Remember this, along with the prime directive of the Wiki (NPOV), and you'll be fine. Edit Centric (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is great news! I'm glad you're back; I'd be lost :) And there's absolutely no shame in taking more (and longer) wikibreaks. — Edokter • Talk • 20:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Distant Man-made Navigable Waterway! said quickly." Nice to see you back. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know - it's super news to see you back on here. This totally makes my day! You're an excellent admin and I know I certainly would miss you like crazy were you to leave the project. Welcome back :) - Alison ^❤ 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all again, I can't keep up with all these accolades (blushing). — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, don't scare me like that! Good to have you back, buddy. :) GlassCobra 21:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, next time you quit....can I have your beer award? I always loved that one.  ;)--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 22:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

earn it baby! — Rlevse • Talk • 22:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to have you back. I've gave you some advice on my talk page! Good luck. —BoL 22:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back that was close :) Alexfusco⁵ 22:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, yeah! You're greatly needed here and were sorely missed. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're back (-: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. ThuranX (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pile-on. —Animum (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Randy, you'd better update your user page: your 123rd now on WP:WBE. Just 24 to go, and merely 4400 edits will take care of that. ;-) Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Nice to see you back. I protected it mainly because, basically, if you said "I quit", then nobody else should change that until you came back. (For example, when RickK left, his userpage received basically no constructive edits but vandalism before he came back to protect it.) You can (obviously) go ahead and unprotect it if you want.   jj137 ^♠ 22:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just curious and that's what I'd figured. Thanks for taking care of me. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the ANI case has been closed. What happens next with that case? Anthon01 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The arbs should be looking into it. If you have things for them, contact one directly or email to the arb mailing list: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org — Rlevse • Talk • 23:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may give some advice: drop ArbCom/ArbEnforcement, at least for a while. Go edit some articles. It helps :D

Great to see you again, my friend. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 23:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sure? I'd hand the reins fully to you if that's what you want. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, team up gal. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm busy uploading a whole mess of images to Commons (where I'm a clueless newbie...) so I may be a bit distracted until I upload the last 50 or so. :P Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin there too. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, I'll poke you if I need anything. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, what did I miss? I came over to tell you I'm back in the saddle, and to ask you to unprotect my userpage now, and I see you took a break and have returned. I'm sorry I wasn't around to support and welcome you back ... some times on Wiki are real killers, huh?  :/ Welcome back, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, thanks for the support, page unprot'd. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to weigh in on this discussion, as the photographer whose work is being manipulated. - John Russ Finley (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, but there's really nothing to be done here. Many of my images have appeared all over the web. As for the content of that site, people will see it for what it is. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe is it time to swap that picture to one with Scouts that have fun doing something, getting muddy, pioneering, etc. Not just sitting and keeping their uniform clean. Some said about this picture, "if this is fun, then Scouting, specially the BSA, must be really boring" --Egel _Reaction? 13:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a good one? This one does have them smiling after all? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is if they alter the images in a bad way. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sent email, posted this "The potential for abuse of images, making wiki look bad, condoning child porn here is huge. Please act, Jimbo. If such use is condoned, I will no longer submit images of children to wiki." — Rlevse • Talk • 22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom is the right for people to be free to act the way they want to act. The free culture movement is about enabling people to create, modify, and distribute information as text, sounds, images, or video by providing copyleft software tools and content for modification and redistribution. It is not free if the uses are legally restricted to the original content creator's desired purposes. For that, you need to use a non-free copyright license. Wikipedia and WikiMedia have a mission of maximum worldwide free distribution of freely re-editable educational content. If one does not want content that they create to be legally free to be modified and redistributed for causes one does not personally endorse, then they should not contribute them to a free culture site such as wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, sent me for a spin there, but I'm very glad you decided to stay. I figured it would only add to your stress to bug you about the coaching, and I really don't get the various off-wiki communications systems. Being co-coached by you and Keilana would be an honor and a real plus for me, since you both have varied interests and experiences. MBisanz ^talk 04:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad such a drastic move made us show our support, but at least you know our opinion now. Squash Racket (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. You have the right to take a wiki-break whenever you want, not only after you are really f*up. --Egel _Reaction? 14:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have you back :) - Revolving Bugbear 16:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, you were gone? I'm glad you decided not to make it permanent :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you noticed this editor:[1]. Very few edits, and I think it's likely it's the same person that opened the sock case. The only edits by this user are to ask for help with a sock case, and he posted the case on my talk page. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indef'd, wish I knew who the master was. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you please paste copies of two deleted pages to my user space. I would like to address the concerns mentioned in the AfDs. They are KRC (Scientology) and ARC (Scientology). Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm facing another sockpuppet 124.87.134.96 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) of the banned ip user 219.66.40.104 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), 219.66.45.131 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) (in this time, different network host) now. Per the ip user's same writing style and interest (ex. Yujacha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views){Manhwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)_, I believe the user evades his sanction again (many 5~6 times?) Can you look into his contributions and block him? Thanks.. --Appletrees (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't get to this for a few hours. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned is not the same as blocked. IPs are only normally blocked for short periods, even an indefinite block is not a ban. Please provide diffs showing your claims. This report is not obvious to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you give me some much needed admin coaching!! Ningnangnong (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're a brand new user. Just get familiar with how to use wiki and it's policies. You need thousands of edits to be an admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is a pain in my talk page's ass... and probably a lot of other people's talk pages too. But don't feel too bad, we only like you slightly less because of it. So here's the thing; I'm totally awesome, k? And I have a better code. Not only will it keep your sig from effing up the coding of any more pages, BUT it also is like a whole line shorter. The servers will love you... much more than they love me even, because a sig as beautiful as mine takes space, ya know? So here you go, you can thank me monetarily at a later time:
<font family=verdana> — [[User:Rlevse|<font color=#060>'''''R''levse'''</font>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<font color=#990>Talk</font>]] • </font>
Best regards, Lara❤Love 18:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it says "invalid raw signature". — Rlevse • Talk • 19:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

test here, just pasted here: — Rlevse • Talk •

test here with "raw" checked (with check it errors): <font family=verdana> — [[User:Rlevse|<font color=#060>'''''R''levse'''</font>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<font color=#990>Talk</font>]] (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Images are not showing up on any Wiki pages I open. Are you having this problem? Thoughts? Some toolbar button images are missing too. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 19:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. When this happens, it's always a server problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, one of your images is being discussed at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Boy_Scouts_are_for_spanking.3F. --B (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, see the "Boy Scouts and spanking (PR disaster)" thread above. I took the pic, so yes I can release it. And no the boys aren't ID'd. Anything I need to do hear? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess if you're ok with it, it is what it is. What really irks me is that Wikia and Wikipedia are basically owned and operated by the same people and if Jimbo, as the head of Wikia, is going to allow Wikipedia content to be misused in this way, that's a concern. Suppose that people on Wikia start photoshopping Scouting images in compromise positions - which would be permitted under the GFDL. This kind of misuse is something that Wikia as a company needs to step in and do something about. --B (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted such a picture(edit) would violate the SpankArt Wiki rules. --Roguebfl (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provide link pls. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Spanking_Art:Image_use_policy#Pornography] Such an edited piture does get challenged as obscene . --Roguebfl (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see. What to do besides complain on Jimbo's talk page? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to send him an email to his Wikia address - it's more likely to get a response. --B (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sent email, posted this "The potential for abuse of images, making wiki look bad, condoning child porn here is huge. Please act, Jimbo. If such use is condoned, I will no longer submit images of children to wiki." — Rlevse • Talk • 22:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you want him to act? This is sort of one consequence of releasing things under free licenses. It has nothing to do with Wikia and Wikipedia's relationship; I could start up a website myself and use the photo in exactly the same way. Jimbo might be concerned about the use of Wikia hosting to host that kind of wiki, but that has nothing to do with the Wikipedia community. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could and should are two different things. Even if Jimbo can use the image doesn't mean he should use the image. There are a lot of things in life that I can do, but I don't do them because they would be morally wrong. Using this image is morally wrong, even if the GFDL might permit its use. If Wikipedia stands in favor of child pornography and pedophilia, then I want no part of it ... because guess what - these kids in Scouting are far more important than making money for Jimbo Wales on Wikia. --B (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's not using the image. Somebody else is, using Wikia server space. Would you be less upset if the people who started this wiki had exactly the same wiki, but were hosting it somewhere else? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less upset? No, of course not. But that's a silly question - the reason I'm taking it up with Jimbo is that he is the owner/founder/whatever of the company using the imatge. If he weren't, then it wouldn't be a useful issue to raise here - I would take it up with whoever the site owner is. --B (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fair. As long as you agree that this isn't a case of Jimbo/Wikia somehow abusing his/its connection to Wikipedia. What this wiki is doing - however reprehensible - is something anybody can do, since the photo was released under a free license. And now, Rlevse, I'll stop hijacking your talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course this use isn't an abuse of Jimbo's role with both organizations. All anyone has asked, is that as an interested member of both communities, he exercise reasonable discretion in what kind of content he is going to host with his company. --B (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a Wikia staffer has blanked and protected the article until they decide what to do. [2] --B (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good, — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, she is an admin here too - CatherineMunro (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). --B (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Gadget850/T1 and let me know what you think. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can figure is to discuss this on the project, let folks know the issues and let them decide for themselves. Welcome back, eh? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please summarize and put on talk WP:SCOUT. One this is that commons photos of live or recently deceases should have "personality rights" tag like all mine now do: Image:World_Jamboree_2007_009.jpg. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this today. We probably need to go so far as to have a project guideline recommending against uploading any photo depicting a personally identifiable youth without parental informed consent. We need to be careful about how it's structured so that it doesn't offend the "Wikipedia is not censored" crowd, but a simple reminder that BSA Youth protection policy forbids XYZ or the Guide to Safe Scouting forbids XYZ that is placed in the talk page headers of BSA-specific articles would be a good idea. There are PD-old photos of kids that are dead or at least in their 80s that we can use and we can use group photos that are zoomed out enough that you can't make out an individual face, but I think this has taught us clearly that we need to stop uploading personally identifiable photos of youth members. --B (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It probably is a good idea to stop. But as far as BSA YPT goes, as long as we don't ID the kid by name we are okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a stab at a guideline- should it be separate or part of WP:S-IMG? I'm afraid this is a gray area as the Youth Protection rules do not cover photos.[3] Each council is supposed to develop their own rules for website operations based on state and local laws and the standards and guidelines set by National.[4] I have no clue on the policies of other countries or national Scout organizations. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest something like "here's a potential problem area....cover your rear by doing this..." I"d say make it part of IMG, ask for input on WP:SCOUT, avoid country specific as it varies too much. See my new taggings on commons for a few things you can do there. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what IMG is, but it needs to be somewhere under Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting so that nobody claims we are trying to unilaterally change Wikipedia's image use policy. We are merely making a suggestion for Scout leaders that are interested in contributing images to articles related to this WikiProject. If it is stored in template space or uses the {{guideline}} template or anything like that, someone will try to MFD it faster than you can say "too much time on your hands". --B (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you've heard, but see http://spankingart.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Jimbo_Wales --B (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I hadn't heard, but OOH RAH! — Rlevse • Talk • 14:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Gadget850/Sandbox4 for draft. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA now has a link on the main page to a newly created nonviolence policy.[5] "non-obscene photo of a recognisable person -> ok, but the person may object to how their photo is used". --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good on both points, made some suggestions. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user already had a last warning and when he continued to attack the user user:nku_pyrodragon you gave him another warning instead of a block —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rws killer6 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See outcome of the SSP case you submitted here. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the prompt resolution of the SSP case. It is still my profound hope that our open matter regarding George Thomas Coker could be resolved peaceably with similar alacrity. Alansohn (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. FYI, I spend LOTS of time on the SSP page. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you oppose child pornography, you support slavery. [6] I'm glad we've created this encyclopedia with such wonderful information. --B (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, my point was that opposing free culture because it allows people to promote thing you disagree with is promoting a lack of freedom. Think of the children! Should they all be raised in a world where information is proprietary and controlled or raised in a world where they and others are all free to express themselves? Freedom of speech is about the freedom to communicate and promote what we don't wish communicated and promoted or it is nothing - there is no need to protect speech everyone supports. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we made Wikipedia Review [7]. --B (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom is the right for people to be free to act the way they want to act. The free culture movement is about enabling people to create, modify, and distribute information as text, sounds, images, or video by providing copyleft software tools and content for modification and redistribution. It is not free if the uses are legally restricted to the original content creator's desired purposes. For that, you need to use a non-free copyright license. Wikipedia and WikiMedia have a mission of maximum worldwide free distribution of freely re-editable educational content. If one does not want content that they create to be legally free to be modified and redistributed for causes one does not personally endorse, then they should not contribute them to a free culture site such as wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom is not an absolute right, it has limits. Check any number of US Supreme Court rulings. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rlevse. Did you see Hrafn's Hrafn's comment at Talk:Politicization of science? --Iamunknown 23:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again.  :-) I meant to say this soon after my first comment above, but I wanted to apologise for commenting on the talk page and then coming here; in my opinion, it should have been the other way; i.e. let you know of Hrafn's comment first, wait for your comment and then add my own comment if was pertinent or necessary.

I guess it isn't a Wiki-Sin ;-), but my action does seem to me to be impolite. Thanks for being polite to me nonetheless.  :-) Cheers, Iamunknown 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:No, Gwen! looks awfully SOCKy with only 4 edits, 1 to vote against deletion and 1 to question the closing admin. Probably impossible to tell whose though with all the comments to the AFD page. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sock, can you tell who the master is? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well they address Durova by name [8] so its obvious they know she is a person whose opinion is highly regarded. User:TlatoSMD is a possibility, but he's been around long enough to know better, as does User:Homologeo. This related edit summary seems fishy though [9]. User:Jack-A-Roe seems very involved, but I'm not sure which side he's on. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Hard to block without a master of able to show vote stacking. Keep an eye on it and let me know when you figure it out and we can block. Use SSP, AIV, whatever is appropriate. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit suspicious...she also knows what deletionism is by the looks of it. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keilana - is there something blockable right now? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pedophilia_Article_Watch#Pro-pedophile_chatboard_.2F_forum_resources_linked_from_Wikipedia seems to point to User:Jack-A-Roe as the owner, as only 3 users have editted that page in the last 2 weeks. But I wouldn't call it good enough to go to RFCU with. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, just a suspicious amount of wiki-experience. Knows how AFDs work, what deletionism is, signs comments, knows policy...it just doesn't seem right. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not right. He's a sock, watch him, he'll reveal his master or goof eventually. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Delivery

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. Ralbot (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is making the same reverts that User:Atari400 (the sockpuppet of User:KirbyTime) made to Template: Countries of the Indosphere. He is making the same omissions and is not justifying anything in the talk pages after having been asked multiple time to join the debate, but has done nothing and in fact claims that i have not joined the discussion [10], though I am all over the talk page. He has been told by a user with rollback powers (Alexfusco5) that he has been making unconstructive edits that need to be justified. After Alexfusco5 made the comment and reverted his edit, he has been silent on the template and the template talk. He did has not edited the template again at this time in order to not break the 3RR. Based of his talk page, it appears that he has violated the WP:CIV, but I am unsure; if he has can you please give him a warning or some form of disciplinary action. Also, I would like to know, where or to whom should I report his behaviour? Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also posted the above on Jehochman's user talk Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo, Where should I place this question? - [11] Thanks in advance. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your concern is clarifying what a ruling covers, in the Requests for Clairficaiton section of WP:RFAR. If you feel violations of the ruling have occurred and you are seeking enforcement, file at [{WP:AE]. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, I wish to tender my sincere thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 37 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutral. The results of the RfA are extremely bittersweet because of the recent departure of my nominator, Rudget. Hopefully I can live up to his and your expectations. I would especially like to thank Epbr123 and TomStar81 for mentioning that they were preparing to offer me a nomination. The past week has been one of the most stressful weeks in my life, and I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, just get in touch. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, people are actually taking advantage of my cool-ass template without attribution! miranda 08:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response on Miranda's and my talk pages if you're interested in the chain of events. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG, drama. XD miranda 20:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[12]

You edit conflicted out my decline :( - Revolving Bugbear 22:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rlevse,

Thank you for your constructive criticism and input in making Alpha Kappa Alpha a featured article.

Best,

miranda 08:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]