User talk:Rlevse/Archive 6

Vital articles and Release Version
Hi, I debated about the articles in Wikipedia talk:Vital articles. How can we add the results in the Release Version.-- Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking me this? I haven't worked that area. What exactly are you looking for?Rlevse 17:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The BBC source
The BBC source which you have removed from the article was not a part of the conflict. It was removed by Dahn by mistake. See my talkpage for confirmation. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything by Dahn that says it was a mistake. The protection is for 24hours, it can be worked out then.Rlevse 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * He said the source was okay, but even if he didn't, could you please use some common sense? BBC is usually reliable, is it not? --Thus Spake Anittas 20:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am, you are in the middle of a bitter edit war and I'm forcing a time out hoping to get cooler heads to prevail, everyone needs to calm down. And your "could you please use some common sense" comment isn't going to score you any points. You have a long block history, hopefully you've learned something. If you prefer, I can unprotect the page and then block both of you from all editing.Rlevse 21:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How long would the block last? --Thus Spake Anittas 21:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Anonimu -- 1 week, Annittas -- one month due to multiple prior blocks and long history of this sort of editing. Take your pick, but note the page is only protected for 24 hours and it such edit wars reoccur you could get blocked indef again. Rlevse 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would be fair. For starters, it was he who removed my sources (vandalism) and committed the first 3RV; secondly, I was the one who asked the moderators to step in, but no one did; thirdly, my block history only contains one such incident, while his block history contains two such incidents -- altough I don't really see the relevancy in that. Anyway, I just wanted to say that both Dahn and he seems to accept the BBC source. If you check the Nicolae Ceausescu article, Anonimu accepted the source, but added his own version of "show trial," which I can also accept. I don't know why, but you moderators come to salvation at exactly the wrong time: when everything is solved, you show up. I'm not trying to be ungrateful, I just think it's funny. In my opinion, I should get 3 days and he should get 6 days, because he was also rude, making a sexual insultive remark by saying "let's get blown." What he means is that I need to get laid. He often insults me this way in another forum and this time, he made this remark on Wiki -- and yet I don't complain about that. But okay, I can wait 24 hours and readd the BBC source, but I don't think you, or any other administrator, have -- or should have --, the authority to place indef blocks on anyone for a simple matter such as this one. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's fair based on your prior block history and follows wiki policy--you have 7 or so prior blocks and he two and you were indef blocked once for several months, all the way to Jimbo. If he and you have a long history of such conflicts, you may want to consider mediation or WP:ANI.Rlevse 21:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're using the American rationale on this; as when one committs three crimes, they go to jail for some 30 years or so. I have read about a kid who stole a bike and got some 20 or 30 years in jail, because it was his third felony. I think this is madness, but what I think doesn't matter so much. Can you show me where this policy says that one can get indef block in a scenario like this one, or can you take actions as you wish?


 * As for my past block history, two of my blocks were reverted and Jimbo's block, as I had said earlier, was for something totally different; altough, I'm not sure that would make any difference in your book. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Block
Why have you blocked me? I was not involved in war edits, and I have not broken the 3RR. [User:Afrika_paprika]] did many mass reverts, against my referencied edits. I've defended 4 articles against the vandalism of a notorius troll. That's my right: Afrika is a multi banned user. It was User:AjdemiPopushi, a sockpuupet of him, to report me a a breaker of the 2RR. So I am clean and I did not "plus edit warring". Meanwhile I ws blcoked this usere did sever other vandalism against severe articles. Best regard.--Giovanni Giove 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ademji has now been id'd as a sock of afrika and indefinitely blocked, but this was not known and in the 3RR report filed. If I'd known that, the result would certainly have been different as there was definitely an edit war on the Ragusa article. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I went on what was known at the time and in the 3RR report.Rlevse 22:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was sure you was just doing your work. Please copy this message on my page. Not there is again the same problem, and the article should be sprotected. It is true; there is a war about Ragusa: that why I did several edits on each single points. All the edits must be referncied: that what I did. Thank you.--Giovanni Giove 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing warnings from talk pages
Have the rules changed on removing warnings from one's own talk page? According to WP:UP, "On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon."

The way I read it, it is neither against policy nor considered vandalism for one to remove warnings from his own user talk page. It is merely frowned upon. Has this policy changed? If so, perhaps a change to the guideline page is in order. --Tjsynkral 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Think of it this way, if you remove warnings, what is it you're trying to hide? You would merely be putting yourself in an even worse position.Rlevse 23:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If the warning were to be used against me later, it could be easily retrieved from the history page. I reserve the right to perform "housekeeping" on my own user page. Furthermore when users make incorrect allegations am I supposed to leave them on my User Talk page even though they are false? --Tjsynkral 23:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: An incident has been opened regarding this matter. --Tjsynkral 23:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Okay, thanks for the reply. Brain40 [ talk  ]  [  contributions  ]
 * Well, in my opinion, warnings should be left on a talk page to make referencing easier for the administrators. Well, back to patrolling the recent changes area. Good luck with things. Brain40  [ talk  ]  [  contributions  ]
 * Could you direct me to the template that says "this article uses content from the 1999 Encyclopedia Americana"? Brain40  [ talk  ]  [  contributions  ]
 * I don't know myself and a quick search didn't reveal it.Rlevse 23:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of warnings on user talk pages
From what I've seen in discussions on the administrator's forums, the new, but apparently unwritten policy is that editors are allowed to remove warnings from their user talk pages if they want to. Removing a warning is considered acknowledgement by the editor in question that they have seen the warning. Cla68 02:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So someone gets a valid vandism notice, removes it, gets reported to AIV and the admin checks to see if they have been warned and has to dig through history pages to find it? Ha, I'll stop fighting vandals if I have to do that.Rlevse 02:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with new "rule" or not, just letting you know what seems to be the situation now from what I've read on the admin pages. One of the reasons may be due to instances of editors harrassing other editors with warning banners and then arguing back and forth about whether the warning was justified or not. Cla68 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there rlevse...I appreciate your work on this, as tj continually removed the warning I attempted to post on his user page...which, ironically, was the 3rr rule on another page. TotallyTempo 02:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, as a student of the Charter School of Wilmington, I appreciate your help in banning that vandal. --CmaccompH89 02:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem.Rlevse 02:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Scouting / child abuse / censorship
Just seen your note calling me a troll. This is uncalled for:

1) My (extremely cautious) raising of the controversial issue of child abuse on the scouting page is what brought about your comment. The subsequent discussion seems mature and thoughtful so far - by contrast your comment seems unfair and (just possibly) defensive.

2) What exactly did I do to deserve your abuse? Was it raising the issue in the first place? Providing a reference to what seems to be a major US news story? Or was it (and here I may have been a little naive) noticing a book being cited by another editor (on child abuse and scouting) and believing the simple addition of a mention of this book would improve the comprehensiveness of the scouting page (I had not come across the book before it was mentioned in discussion - but I see there is something of a technical problem, in that there is no easy way to list this book, the scouting page having no "Further reading" section, where it might most comfortably belong)?

3) The W page on Trolls says "The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits, than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality." I believe my actions to have been properly motivated: it is inaccurate to ignore the child abuse question; it is true to say there are/have been child abusers attracted to scouting; and the addition of the book mentioned by others would have improved the comprehensiveness of the entry.

4) Part of the subsequent discussion focuses on questions of culture. I am British, and certainly within my culture (perhaps restricted to my age group, young middle-aged) references to "dodgy scout masters" are legion. No doubt other cultures experience things differently. (My being British also inevitably means that "separated by a common language" problems may arise between you and me.)

5) Finally, you call me a troll - and as your experience of W is quite astonishingly greater than mine, presumably this greater experience increases the offensiveness of what must therefore be taken as a carefully considered insult by you. But I do not want to trade blows, which makes it very hard to raise my final (and possibly most significant point) without appearing just to be getting back at you. Please assume the best of intentions when I ask whether there is not, to put it at its lowest, something of a potential conflict of interest in having you (and it seems Jergen, to whose attention I hope you will draw this note) so heavily committed to and experienced in both scouting and W? Is there not a risk of a certain slackening of objectivity? I am not making conspiratorial claims - but questions come to mind of subconscious self-censorship and the wish to protect something you respect greatly, indeed maintain "group norms", despite the potential conflicts between the two groups (W and scouts) concerned. If this comment is old news, apologies: the entries on scouting are so large, long and numerous I haven't checked everything. Testbed

Disruptive editor / revert war / I have reached three so can engage no more
Would you please review Panties in which the editor User:Robotman1974 has repeatedly reverted my edits, calling them "unsourced" and "OR." I have moved the objectionably material to the discussion page until it can be sourced, but Robotman continues to revert my other changes to the page regardless. Robotman will not respond to posts I made on his talk page. He refuses to discuss or reach consensus. 67.101.243.74 22:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Robotman1974 has now posted three different warnings. We both warned the other initially, and after he removed his, I removed mine. Now, however, he has reverted all my edits to the article in question and added these three different warnings to my talk page. I apologize if this is not the usual way to report such activity.  Please let me know how I should do so better in the future if that is the case. 67.101.243.74 22:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Rlevse, I have left an explanation of my actions here. Robotman1974 03:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I find it pointless to create a page just to put a tag on it, whatever is on the talk page is good enough. John Reaves (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting articles
--evrik (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA WELCOMES ITS 100 MILLIONTH MEMBER SINCE ITS ESTABLISHMENT 90 YEARS AGO
 * 1999 Tournament of Roses, Rose Queen is Member of Boy Scout Program

Re: Bcat
Quite honestly, I don't think I would have the time to undertake any substantial bureaucrat work, at this point. I'd probably consider running if there were a real emergency due to lack of bureaucrats; but as long as there are enough to keep things rolling, I don't really feel justified in running just to give myself another title. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding removing barnstar1
I would like say that I am not Djmckee1, i was suprised to get that barnstar and I thank Djmckee1 for it. I hope this clear things with you and Bloddyfriday. Thank You Ambirch1 15:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Bhumibol_AdulyadejRamaIX.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bhumibol_AdulyadejRamaIX.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:RopeBridgeOurChalet.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RopeBridgeOurChalet.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Abu badali (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Jamboree_1999-Czech_Camp.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jamboree_1999-Czech_Camp.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Arthur_Eldred1912.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Arthur_Eldred1912.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Regading Removing Barnstar 2
I Think that Djmckee1 may of accidently given me that barnstar. Yes I am a very good friend of him, but I am 100% sure that the barnstar was not for me. A mistake that can corrected very easily. Thank You Ambirch1 07:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) P.S: Congratulations on becoming an administrator! Good Luck Ambirch1 07:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

userbox
Dear Rlevse, Would you like any userboxes made for WikiProject Scouting,Djmckee1 08:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if we need one, sure. But I don't know of any people are looking for at this time. Did you have one in mind? Rlevse 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Brownsea 22
Rlevse, According to a training camp I attended as a youth; the original Brownsea trip Lord Baden-Powell did, he did it with 22 boys. Thus the training camp is referred to as `Brownsea 22'. I wanted to add "with 22 boys" to the Brownsea reference, but couldn't without proper sources. Do you have any back-up on this? Or is it a myth? I too am a Eagle Scout, any help I can render, please call on me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dnajenks (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Afraid I don't have a ref, I have not heard this before.Rlevse 18:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

GA reviewing
Hi Rlevse. Do you mind taking time reviewing my new proposed-GA article? The article belongs to Government Agencies and now it stands alone in that section. You can be assured that there're no long-queuing candidates, except for mine. Thanks forward.  A  W  16:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already fixed the refs and found all needed citations. What's the next step?  A  W  14:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm trying to improve the article as you suggested. However, I still don't understand some points. Can you explain more clearly about the order of heraldry items? And if Guatemala section needs a summary about its main article, so should Iran need, too? If such, the article will become longer. About "Further information: CIA and the war on terror (This article)", I think it originally means more information would be shown in the section "CIA and the war on terror" in the article itself. However, if it doesn't make sense, I have no problem removing it.  A  W  02:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You list the heraldy as a/b/c but describe them in a/c/b order. Yes, Iran too, but it's not so long that you HAVE to shorten it, just don't add too much. Yes, rm "this article". Rlevse 02:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But I don't know what problems with the code.:(  A  W  02:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get the question.Rlevse 02:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean I don't know why, maybe because of wrong coded. Also, what about this?  A  W  09:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed the heraldry for you. For Whitlock, you could mention it.Rlevse 11:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Two things: a) the lead doesn't summarize the article. It should summarize each major subsection but you have it just providing background info, it needs an overhaul. b) how did you come to ask me to help? I don't recall crossing paths with you before.Rlevse 11:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for fixing the heraldry thingy. What a relief, I'm very tired of fixing refs. a) About the lead section, I think it's fairly clear and extensive. It mentions all the fundamental functions of the CIA. If I summarize major sections, I'm afraid it'll become too long. However, it's just my subjective idea and I'll try to rewrite the lead again because you're a much more experienced editor. b) I checked through the GA reviewers participants list and I randomly chose your name. And my choice is completely accurate. Before nominating the article, I think my work is nearly perfect but then you "crucially" point out a bunch of mistakes. Your "evil eyes" scare me off, Mr. Eight-Features.  A  W  13:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

AIV
Responded. Edit conflict twice. I think things were cleared up, and the username can be removed and not blocked.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Your question
I agree with you on Wikimongers disposition. Seems another admin agreed as well &mdash; issuing an indefinite block for posting the password. &mdash; User: (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

username
Hi, you have blocked this user for having an inappropriete username, as well as leaving the Usernameblocked on their talk page, but also used the Account Creation Block feature;which means this user won't be able to create a new account. If there are other reasons besides the username, such as the account being a sockpuppet, a troll, or a vandal, then I the ACB would probroly be justified, I think. I just wasn't aware of anything other than the name being the reason.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I forgot to take the auto block off. I'll go fix it. Rlevse 02:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Honoring Texas Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients
As a major contributor to the FA Medal of Honor, I thought you might be interested in this local effort to honor Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients from Texas: &mdash; User: (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Very interesting, thanks.Rlevse 11:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your decision on User:Psantora's 3RR violation
Hi there, I question your decision on my report on User:Psantora's violation of 3RR. There is no such a rule that if someone violated 3RR 2 weeks ago, he shouldn't be blocked for violation. I was unable to report him because of the block imposed on me by his report. More importantly, he hasn't realized he had violated 3RR. He needs to blocked to prevent him from further violation in the future. Miaers 14:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "More importantly, he hasn't realized he had violated 3RR." You admit you never gave him a warning? You miss the whole point of 3RR, to stop edit wars. If he is continuing, submit a new report.Rlevse 14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

He warned me first. He is more aware of this rule than me. I think the rule is the rule. And anyone should be the same before the rule. What I mean is that he doesn't admit his violation even after the warning, I discussed with him on my talk page during my block. Miaers 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Hi. Got your note. I'm taking a look. Check your e-mail in about an hour. &mdash; User: (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sent you a note. &mdash; User: (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Redundant report
This 3RR report was filed AFTER User:Iranzulqarnain had already been blocked for the same 3RR violation, so you essentially re-blocked that user for the same 3RR violation, I don't think that's fair. The user in question is a newbie with 7 edits overall and is not yet familiar with any Wiki rules. There's a lot of newbie biting going on - which makes the newbie bite back. --Mardavich 01:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks for noticing that. I unblocked him.Rlevse 01:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Calobster
Thanks for catching my wrongly place tag on the above page. I was working fast but not well. --Stormbay 03:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Raul
Raul's 6th edit and talk page edits show at least borderline incivilty, which could be interpreted poorly by said person its being directed at.-- Wizardman 03:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

3rd Padiham Scouts
I say get rid of the article - it will be included in the Lancashire article when I get to it, but there's nothing that is of value in the current group article for merging, so let it go. -- Horus Kol Talk 06:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I tagged it with speedy, so I can't be the one to delete it.Rlevse 11:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

ce
Hi Rlevse. Copyediting requests are piling up (have gone from zero for months to about five in the last week—I think it must be due to a certain someone's return :-). I generally don't like to make promises other than to finish the article I'm currently working on, but I'll keep BSofA on my list. Hopefully the ce project helps out. Thanks for asking. – Outriggr § 07:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK thanks.Rlevse 11:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

User:JL71JO
Don't know why you banned this user, but User:DreCosby, whose edits clearly show he's a sockpuppet, is requesting unblock right now because of an autoblock. Perhaps you wish to nab this one as well. Part Deux 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User:JL71JO is a sock of User:JJonathan. Are you saying User:DreCosby is a sock of him too? Can you provide evidence? Rlevse 23:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, they have the same IP, (he got caught up in an autoblock), and the contributions are similar enough by the duck test. Part Deux 10:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw that, wondered if you knew more.Rlevse 11:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The block of the IP expired, as a suspected IP of JJonathan, it was only blocked a week. I have crossed paths with JJonathan socks more than any other. I'll keep an eye on it.Rlevse 11:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ribbon for today's events
FYI, if you would like to add a ribbon to your user page in memory of those who were lost in today's events, you can use Virginia Tech ribbon to place a small orange and maroon ribbon in the top right corner of your user page (similar to the administrator icon). --BigDT 04:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.Rlevse 09:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That article, Virginia Tech massacre has thousands of edits already.Rlevse 09:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just unreal. It had to be s-protected yesterday because it was getting edited 10-15 times/minute and even the admin rollback button wouldn't work for reverting vandalism. I guess if Wikipedia had been around for 9/11 or Columbine, it would have been the same thing. This is probably the biggest national crisis since Wikipedia became popular. --BigDT 15:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, I hadn't thought of it that way.Rlevse 16:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Hillcourt_and_Baden-Powell.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Hillcourt_and_Baden-Powell.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review
Dear Rlevse,

It would be more than welcome - if you could find some time in order to review the Ante Starčević biography - which I nominated as a GA.

Best regards,

--BarryMar 12:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * First, make the lead 1-2 paragraphs that summarize the article.Rlevse 14:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

École Polytechnique massacre
If you have a moment, please take another look at École Polytechnique massacre an FAC that you commented on here. I believe most of your concerns have been addressed, and would be interested to see your response. Cheers. Dina 01:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Wolfer continues.
Due to your prior involvement, you will be interested in this. FraisierB 02:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt action. I can only hope that Mr. Wolfer learns a lesson from this. FraisierB 03:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that Mr. Wolfer has been put on forced holiday, his friends Otheus and Endlessmike have decided to "grief" me. In the course of false allegations against Buridan, they noticed that I'm behind the same firewall as FreddyTris, so they decided to insult and harass us both by claiming we are one and the same. Moreover, they have been defacing user pages and wantonly reverting perfectly good edits. I am sickened by this display of petty partisanship and urge you not to reward it. I am distressed to hear that Wolfer's ban has been shortened as well. All of this makes me think that Lan was right about Wikipedia. FraisierB 22:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it's impossible to please everyone in a case like this; and Wolfer's ban would have ended tomorrow anyway and he was fully blocked for a day, which is the most common 3RR block time. The rest of this goes way beyond the scope of 3RR report, you may need to look at SOCK, ANI, AIV, RFCU, ANI, etc. Defacing user pages is vandalism and should be reported at AIV. If you and another user are behind the same firewall, you may want to look at ways to prove you're not the same person, otherwise, they'll think you're socks. Rlevse 22:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how I can be expected to prove a negative here!

I had already known that Lancombz was behind the same firewall because he is indirectly responsible for my getting involved with Wikipedia. However, we have only a slight acquaintance and it is not a relationship of equals, making it difficult for me to compel him to do anything at all. Furthermore, he left Wikipedia in a huff weeks ago over the behavior of the very same people now hounding me. When I contacted him earlier today to ask for his advice and assistance, he only insisted that Wikipedia was corrupt, incompetent and a waste of his time. He used less polite words than that, making it clear that the matter was closed, as he saw it.

I do not know who FreddyTris is, and though "Fred" is a common name, it is not to be found around here. I do not see much chance of his aiding me because he is an ardent Objectivist and has shown an active disdain for Wikipedia administration, to the point where he caught Mr. Wolfer in a 3RR violation but chose not to report it.

There is an atmosphere of a witch hunt here and the matter is spiraling out of control. Otheus, Endlessmike 888 and some anonymous user have all defaced my user page. This has also taken place on Freddy's page and Lan's, both with suspiciously anonymous users joining in. Otheus has demanded that Lancombz apologize and make promises, but of course this requires Lan to return to Wikipedia, which I doubt will ever occur.

The attacks include a number of malicious revert wars outside of user pages. Mike has reverted Freddy's edit of Ayn Rand with a dishonest comment and is clearly taunting him. It appears to be working, given Freddy's angry responses. Along with Ethan a dawe, Mike is doing much the same on Objectivism (Ayn Rand), leaving intentionally false edit comments. I fully expect Freddy to lose his temper and go amok at any moment. The locus of this insanity is, where they are spinning tales linking me to still other users. They started with Buridan, but are now trying to expand it to Esmehwp and perhaps others.

What we have here is a group of users trying to take over all of the articles related to Ayn Rand, using intimidation, administrator manipulation and outright deceit to get their way. Lan might have been short-tempered, but he was clearly not delusional. At this point, I am frustrated and disgusted by the state of affairs and want only for this foolishness to come to an end. Can you do something about this? FraisierB 00:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's the accusers duty to prove that they are sockpuppets of each other. It's part of assuming good faith. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 00:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but reality does not always match the rules.Rlevse 00:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, "proof" around here consists of (a) RFCU, (b) editing patterns, (c) agreement by neutral admins. Proof does not mean proof in a mathematical sense or even near the "beyond the shadow of doubt" in capital crime legal cases. As I detail [here, this was no witch hunt. I have individually asked the users to agree to a topic ban in exchange of lifting the block. [[User:Otheus|Otheus]] 06:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

SteveWolfer block
I both agree and disagree with your block of. That he has been edit warring and violating 3RR, however, is contingent upon a consensus view that he was not reverting damaging statements according to WP:BLP. He believes his reverts were in good faith and accordance to BLP. While one can certainly find fault with his views on the relevance of the material to BLP, his actions were in good faith. However, since I have no experience here as an admin, I cannot really critique your judgement. But personally, if this had been me, I would have preferred a neutral opinion by an admin that such reverts did constitute violation of the 3RR rule, before being blocked. Otheus 13:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The ref clearly states that the school is unaccredited and grads can be licensed, which is what the article says; stating facts is not libel. The ref is an official source and very reliable and refers to the school, not the subject of the article.Rlevse 13:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rlevse, I assumed you are neutral, and I apologize for my sloppy wording that hinted you were not neutral. I basically meant that you should have been the neutral admin giving him a warning, and a warning from FraisierB would not be seen as neutral. That was really my only point. As I'm really not in a position to critique your actions, the following are merely points to demonstrate my good faith and that perhaps will influence your future actions regarding this matter
 * First, I saw the 3RR report, but I suspect Buridan is gaming the system.. Take my suspicion as a grain-of-salt, however, similar suspicions apparently led to SteveWolfer to file a WP:RFCU on him:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Buridan I believe Buridan's apparent crusade against Objectivism has been in good faith, and an attempt to counter rabid Randians from a hostile takeover of all Philosophy articles (years ago, one could observe these behaviors on the usenet).
 * Second, 's actions themselves have been somewhat suspicious. Turns out, the above checkuser demonstrated that he and use the same IP, and both edit extensively on Rand-related topics. FrasierB's had made 27 edits, exactly 1 has been to a talk page. Lancombz has made 35 Mainspace edits, and only 1 on a talk page. Despite the paucity of Talk edits, however, he does not fail to make good use of the edit summary.
 * I also know that what the article states a fact and is not libel. However, it is certainly possible to violate BLP along the lines of libelous statements by connecting two facts together. In this case, in the original text that began the edit war, Branden's PhD appears to be the production of a diploma mill. A sufficient link to the university he received his PhD from should be sufficient, but for some reason, other authors disagree with that. Those authors' introduction of "unaccredited" without further clarification in the text leads to Steve's conclusion that this is a violation of BLP. Inititally, I agreed with him, but recently, I disagreed. His response to me here points out that the a compromise had previously been reached between the various editors that the article on the University page would detail the complicated nature of degrees from that university, rather than put it on the page here.
 * --Otheus 14:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is obviously more going on here than just the Branden article. It appears there is a deep division amongst those interested in this topic and it has resulted in at least one, possibly several, edit wars. You yourself admit you've switched views a time, or two attesting to the complexity of this case. Steve reverted far more than the others. Not saying the school is unaccredited implies that it is accredited as people assume a school is accredited unless otherwise stated, I feel stating so is not unreasonable. Now if the article left those grads could be licensed, then I'd agree with you, but it is in the article. The other option is to page protect the article until they settle this once and for all.Rlevse 14:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not in the article? But I put it in there. Hrm. Otheus 16:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article states they can be licensed, I didn't word the above repsonse well, sorry.Rlevse 16:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See the article and the talk page. I've changed the remedy to page protection and left notes and tips on the talk page. I hope you all can work everything out.Rlevse 19:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You've been more than fair! --Otheus 19:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While you have been fair in regards to steve if he is fighting sockpuppets, but his edit history shows that he was pursuing 3rr violations in another arena than braden at the time. In those situations and in the braden, he was just writing his own perspective without npov or consideration for the consensus of other editors.  For my part of the braden article, I think that if a particular citable bit of information provides information that is pertinent to the audience, then it should not be left out.  There was consensus of over 4 non-sockpuppet-accused editors that steve was reverting as best as i can tell in braden.  I know he thinks that he has cause, that is fine, but we all could use less ownership and more consideration for the audience. --20:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buridan (talk • contribs)
 * He got blocked, not you. Rlevse 21:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but he should have been blocked for his 3rr on template:ethics.--Buridan 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A--he only reverted it 3 times and 3RR normally requires a 4th revert and B--no one ever put in a 3RR report on it.Rlevse 22:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the people Steve was edit warring with on this occassion (Lancombz/FreddyTris/FraiserB) have been confirmed as one person. Endlessmike 888 03:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

PDF link
''Where and why was it determined that the pdf link is problematic? It's never caused a problem on the pages that I've seen. Rlevse 01:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)''
 * The problem comes from a change to how the PDFlink CSS class works, it now gives all links the icon instead of just the external link. It is only apparent when the size of the links is correctly formatted using Binary units with links to their respective article (per MOS:NUM).  Then there is the problem that this usage is not supported and makes machine parsing of the wikitext version a bit more problematic.  If you feel that file size is useful enough to have, then propose at Template:Cite web for the addition of a size parameter.  —Dispenser 01:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:KeikoMatsuiDreamWalk.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:KeikoMatsuiDreamWalk.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Bigr Tex  22:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * tks, it's not orphaned now.Rlevse 22:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible temporary ban
216.7.253.254 has vandalised two articles since the last time that you warned him although over a month has passed. I'm requesting your advice on whether that constitutes rationale for possible temporary ban. Zuracech lordum 23:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the number of articles, it's how many times in how short a span. Also, the most recent warning should be within the last day or so. Give him a new warning and if he violates, report to WP:AIV. Rlevse 00:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Need your admin tools for move
Please move Suomen Partiolaiset to The Guides and Scouts of Finland as agreed at the mediation. I can not do it. --Bduke 07:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.Rlevse

User:Skarpse
Hi Rlevse, the above user has just sent a request to unblock-en-I to be unblocked, saying he didn't realise what he was doing is vandalism, and that he was just trying to create a new article. He sounds genuinely contrite. Do you think it's OK to unblock him? – Riana ऋ 10:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, done.Rlevse 11:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) – Riana ऋ 11:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocking periods
Hi, why is 31 hours proving such a popular blocking period as opposed to 24 or 36, say? TerriersFan 02:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it appears in the drop list (so you don't have to type it in) and good for someone who deserves a bit more than 24 but not 48.Rlevse 09:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. TerriersFan

Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell
Re: humourous change on this article--please be more careful with your Spellmaster account. This is not a typo but a British spelling. This article is on a Brit and uses British spelling throughout.Rlevse 01:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for your message. In fact "humourous" is not a British spelling but is considered a spelling mistake worldwide. It's a bit like "honourary" which I have also been criticised for correcting. You will find links to the various places consensus on this has been reached at User:Spellmaster. Thanks for caring about spelling, as I do myself, and best wishes. --Guinnog 05:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Block
I was going to warn someone for making "vandalism edits" when i saw he has been blocked before. We had correct info. on the article Arkansas 2008 Senate Election. He went and put incorrect info. It looks like he has done this a lot, and since i cant block him could you?

Have a wonderful day,

Politics rule 12:29 28 April 2007 (UTC) His name is 207.69.140.22


 * I just saw this message, it looks like the article has been deleted, so it's a moot point now.Rlevse 19:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Abooikpaagun Lodge
FYI, I noticed this while doing speedy deletions today. (The lodge flap was tagged as a non-commercial image. I have retagged it for fair use.)  I have welcomed the creator of the article and told him about WP:SCOUT. Do we normally have lodge articles? If not, maybe this needs to be merged into a council article? --BigDT 01:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * see WikiProject_Scouting/RulesStandards, section on local articles. Desptite this, there's a constantly recurring debate, led by Evrik on the "many articles" side, and by Chris/Kintetsubuffalo on the "merge" side, about this very issue. Rlevse 02:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm on the "I don't care as long as it's cited" (which this one isn't) side --BigDT 02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

FA stars
I responded on my talk. Savidan 02:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How's it going?
Haven't run into you lately. Hope all is well. I've sent you an e-mail note. &mdash; User: (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Request
Take a look at this note on my talk page. A while back, another admin noticed vandalism to my talk page and semi-protected it. It was not intended to be indefinite. I'd appreciate it if you would take a look; I think it is time to unprotect. If you agree, please unprotect my talk page. Thanks for your review. &mdash; User: (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review and actions. &mdash; User: (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Scouting project template
Very interesting. Is there any standardization/collaboration between WikiProjects on templates? Does the image tag have options to allow for choice of image category? &mdash; User: (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen variations of the project templates. They all have FA/A/GA/B/Start/Stub, but from there they diverge. Your milhist is the most complex template I've seen. We've have not coded options on the image tag yet. Rlevse 14:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Minor correction: all have FA/A/B/Start/Stub: that's the original design (see chemicals. Many have added FA and NA, and I really like the brand new Template/Image classes. And at least one has a Core classifier. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 19:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Warning.
Hello,

I noticed that a vandal using the 128.206.63.20 IP address committed an act of vandalism to the article on Bhumibol Adulyadej. However, you used the fourth warning tag on this user without any prior warnings. Could you please explain the rationale for this action? It seems out of process per WP:AIV. --Aarktica 18:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * he'd been reverted before for the same thing and it's blatant vandalism. I probably should have used the "blatantvandal" tag vice "test4" tag.Rlevse 18:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Capers McDonald
Well, this is interesting. I noticed it while deleting orphaned images. Although I'm not thrilled about autobiographical articles, I'm mystified how someone can say that this article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." --BigDT 05:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the proper course here: restore it, or what?Rlevse 19:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have left a message with the deleting admin asking him for an explanation. Barring that, Deletion review is the way to go ... although honestly, I think it could use a rewrite anyway to make it less of a resume. --BigDT 20:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert on Eagle Scout
I don't really have a vested interest in the Eagle article, but I'm very curious as to why you reverted my small edit. I thought it made the ref section more presentable, and at any rate it made nothing worse. It just puzzles me why you reverted with no explanation. Wrad 03:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry
Sorry but I don't know how. Chicostudent 17:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Herman Hui's picture
Hi Randy, now you're an admin, could you please do the appropriate things for closing the (non-)discussion on the deletion of Herman Hui's picture? The formal period has passed, and no serious problem has been brought forward, as I see it. Thanks in advance. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 17:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks. Proper call, I'd say! Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 21:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Whoa, wait a minute. The default is to delete, unless irreplaceability is demonstrated, which it wasn't. Are you familiar with these issues? I'm wondering because you said in the talk page that it "falls within fair use"", which was never in question. Could you perhaps discuss this with an admin who has had experience with RFU issues? &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, you referred to it as an "ifd", which is not what it was. It's really more akin to a speedy. I would repectfully ask that you relist this and allow it to go through the standard RFU queue instead of making a special exception for this image simply because you're involved with the scouting project. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  01:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not make a special exception and I resent that accusation. I call it as I see it. Rlevse 01:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Resent it if you like, but I see from your history that you have never processed an RFU image aside from this one. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that you stepped in and saved this one because of your involvement with the scouting project, especially since you haven't addressed my points at all, either here or on the image talk page. Why do you think this image is irreplaceable?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive
This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :GAReview underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hilton Head Island, South Carolina
Thank you for the tentative GA review of this article. I'm also out of town for the next week. I will be happy to make the recommended changes as soon as I get home. Best, MoodyGroove 12:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * I found a computer and made the recommended changes. Let me know what you think. Thanks again! Best, MoodyGroove 18:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * Thank you. I will continue to work on the lead section. Best, MoodyGroove 14:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Break
Have a nice camp! Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 20:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC).
 * I did, thanks!Rlevse 21:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Our Chalet 2
I finally got the scanner working and found the pictures, so I've uploaded/added a couple... They're not what I thought I'd taken, though, so unfortunately we have no nice full-building pictures. But at least there's something now.

And, what on earth did they change "Wider Opportunity" to? All I can think of is that it was a particularly stupid name, and I'm not finding anything searching the name I know. I could've sworn I found a page for it a while ago, though -- am I being stupid or forgetful? -Bbik 01:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the photos. I don't know anything about WO. Try Kingbird or Darthgriz98.Rlevse 01:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bongo (antelope)
Hi there, I've taken ALL you've said on the discussion page very seriously and have changed eveything you pointed out over the period of months. Please check it out, it's like a new article! Is this OK for a FAC? Yours very sincerely, Black Stripe 11:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

BSA images
I think I retagged all of the PNG files, while adding the fair use statement for those that were missing. I have been thinking that we need a new subcat for council level emblems (including all of the Yawgoog stuff) and perhaps one for awards. Most of the images you just tagged are orphaned and up for deletion. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ya, I saw that orphan stuff. I'm doing them via AWB so it's no big deal. NThurston can code whatever you want with the templates, okay with me. Rlevse 23:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)...PS, BSAlogo is a dupe of Scoutlogo, that's why we're going this way. Rlevse 23:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes- that is why I did a bunch of retagging. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:HornadaySilverMedal.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:HornadaySilverMedal.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's now a group pic at William Temple Hornaday. Rlevse 09:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And I just now updated it to add the bronze medal and the badge. (You do know you are replying to a bot? :-)  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was more of a note for my archives.Rlevse 14:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Bongo (antelope)
Hi there. Thanks so much for your comments. The lead has been expanded as directed. Refs split. Not sure if more footnotes are required than there are already. All information is presented. What more would you like? We'll keep plugging away here! Thnaks for the driving force! You rock! Black Stripe 14:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it'll make FA yet, but GA is a shot but I can virutally guarantee you'll get pinged for more footnotes and the attribution needed tag. Nice work. Rlevse 16:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Main page featured article protection
Just to let you know that your counter rationale section has had the claim that most readers arrive via google search hits and not the main page taken down. Can you please provide a citation for this? Thanks. Richard001 00:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Personal experience and common sense. How many newcomers are going to type in "http://en.wikipedia.org" by chance versus how many find wiki via looking up info on a topic, which means google or another search engine. The argument for not protecting the main page is pure bunk. It wastes too many people's time. Now when one of my articles gets there, I don't even try to fight the vandals, I just do a post check when it comes off the main page.Rlevse 02:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Username block
Hi, I'd just like to link to the question I asked on my talk page concerning the blocking of my username, in case it'd escape your attention. See Jack the Stripper. Thanks :) 84.197.145.92 16:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate the sash. :-) --evrik (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. You're a tireless worker.Rlevse 15:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot
BetacommandBot has visited my talk page several times recently ... in response, this is what I put up after an image was tagged: Image:Chester County Council CSP.png. --evrik (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, but the FU people don't think like the rest of us. Rlevse 20:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm more worried about the bots. I hate when an FU image gets removed from an article, and then it gets flagged and or deleted because its not being used in an article. GRRRRRR. --17:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Doug Hegdahl
I've tagged the Doug Hegdahl article, as well as making a major copyedit. &mdash; User: (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice work!Rlevse 01:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Any chance you could get a picture (or two) that can be released to be used on Wikipedia? &mdash; User: (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, no special access to any photos of him.Rlevse 01:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Are we done
User:Gadget850/Camps Can we declare this finished and post it? --evrik (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? --evrik (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's use Ed's talk page. See there.Rlevse 16:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Scouting in Connecticut
I made a bunch of edits in the last day to attempt to clean this up Scouting in Connecticut. --evrik (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA ...
Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 06:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Monte Ne
Hi, you posted an opinion in a previous FA nomination page for the Monte Ne article. Since then the article has gone through considerable revision. Would you mind please taking a look at it at the article once more and leaving a new comment in the new FA nomination that is going on right now. Thank you. --The_stuart 22:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI
24.27.23.241 is recruiting help for a PoV assault on the article on marginal utility.  Infinity0, preparing for renewed attack, is making such claims as
 * The wording as it stands is extremely weasly, even if it is sourced.

which flies in the face of the very MoS article that he cites, which defines
 * Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources,

but will have a ring of plausibility for those inclined to support the PoV. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 19:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Image rationale
I have been fiddling with stuff again. Take a look at Image:1993 National Scout Jamboree.png and let me know your thoughts on how the image information is presented. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it. Pretty much the same wording would apply to about any mb, event patch, flap, etc. Rlevse 14:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't boilerplate, so the text is plain and the bots will see it, and it pretty much guides the uploader as to what information should be included. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant, close to all so easily adaptable and not from a template so bots will see it. I like it. Rlevse 15:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Good. I'm working up an image standard- see User:Gadget850/Sandbox2 for a draft. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this just might be ready to post to the standards page for a general review. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Very nice. Go for it.Rlevse 14:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack
When you blocked 24.27.23.241, you noted:
 * personal attacks  [ …  will not be tolerated.]

Upon returning he or she made some edits to the article (which were for the most part acceptable), but then wrote on the discussion page:
 * My prediction: SlamDiego will be furious that Marx so besmirches Hayek's precious proddings that the offensive words will be removed, and I will be blocked.

Now, I think that I'm well within my rights to object to such a preëmptive accusation as a personal attack. It is certainly uncivil and does not assume good faith. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, this statement is presumptive on his part, but I do not see that statement as a personal attack. What it appears to me is that it is trolling and an attempt to start or continue an edit war. Honestly, I think the best option here is to ignore him, otherwise you'll be doing exactly what he wants. Rlevse 01:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be right about him trolling, though to me he seems merely so lost in a PoV that he sees neutrality as vicious bias. Anyway, since he has done at least one bit of recruiting, I feel some need to reply to him on the discussion page to cause any more thoughtful recruits to reconsider, and so that any admin wandering into the situation will see that I have proceeded in good faith (and with significant competence in this area). —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggest you start off give him a civil tag and calmly worded warning.Rlevse 01:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:CFJ3.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:CFJ3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User:おはよございます
Hi, such usernames are allowed: "Non-Latin usernames are allowed, but if you have one you are encouraged to customize your signature to include a transliteration.". Therefore I took the liberty to unblock him :). -- lucasbfr talk 18:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ah, ok. but i think it's silly to allow names 99% of people won't be able to read much less understand.Rlevse 18:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I can see the characters (and read them but that's an other story (his name means Good Morning) ;)). They used to be blockable if I recall. The only thing asked now is to have a readable signature. -- lucasbfr talk 18:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They did used to be blockable, where all the confusion comes from. I can see them but not read them, which is the whole point. Oh well.Rlevse 18:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Dropping by
Just dropping by. I've not had the occasion to make any new edits as a result of your WPMILHIST taggings. Hope all is well. &mdash; User: (talk) 01:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

B-P's painting has disappeared from commons
Randy, apparently the painting by B-P was deleted from wikicommons. See B-P for the link. Can you as an Admin see more than I as a simple user? I can't find any reference as to why/how/etc, and I wasn't notified about any problems with it (not in watchlist, but I'm not sure I was the uploader in the first place). Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 21:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm only an admin on wikipedia, not wikicommons, but it did let me see the deletion log, which says "deleted "Image:My House in the Woods B-P 1911.jpeg" (copyvio, need to wait another 4 years, license tag was subst: and then modified to appear free)". I guess it's a 100-year thing, BigDT would be the best to ask from here. Rlevse 21:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it's 70 year after 8 January 1941 thing --Egel Reaction? 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare
The lead is a summary of the article. The footnotes there were added at the request of previous reviewers, even those facts are also cited in the main body of the article. But I'd be happy to remove the cites there. Will that change your oppose to support? Best,--Alabamaboy 17:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Either way, I've reduced the citations in the lead to only a few. I hope you'll reconsider your oppose. --Alabamaboy 17:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Even Raul654 says there should be few if any footnotes in the lead. Think about it, it's a summary, why would you need lots of footnotes?Rlevse 17:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you. The problem was other editors coming into the article and complaining about unsourced info in the lead--even though that same info was sourced in the main article body. But I've now fixed the problem. Best,--Alabamaboy 17:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that roman numeral note problem a brower specific problem? I'm using Firefox and the roman numeral notes work for me. What browser are you using?--Alabamaboy 17:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've now tested the roman numeral notes by clearing my cache in Firefox and also testing them in IE. Both worked for me.--Alabamaboy 17:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It works for me in IE but not in FF, even after clearing the cache.Rlevse 17:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want, I can convert the notes to the references format. While this would mix the notes throughout the references section, it would fix the problem.--Alabamaboy 17:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * not needed, I'll check it when I get home. Rlevse 18:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is really strange, while it seems to work better in IE, it's inconsistent in FF. Hmm. Probably the coding of the template is the problem. See my query at Template_talk:Ref_label. Rlevse 19:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tracking that down.--Alabamaboy 20:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Brownsea Island Scout camp Reply
Hi, sorry I havent replied sooner, I am away on holiday. I have several other images of wikipedia, including some of the many scout flags around the island and in the church. I also have some images of the camp itself, the stones, the camp shop as well as memorobillia, stickers etc which I could upload as images. I actually live just across from the island at Poole and am planning a trip over in July. If theres any specific things you wanted I will be taking my camera along etc. Let me know what images you want. Regards, LordHarris 12:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have uploaded several images of Brownsea Island to wikicommons. I have uploaded three image of the stone onto wikicommons, hopefully one of them will be of use to you as a replacement. Unfortunately I do not have an image of the actual campground though I will get one in about three weeks when I go the island.

As for the actual campsite, the land is not all cleared. The campsite is compartmentalised, with the stone, shop (selling lots of scout memorbillia and where you pay for the site), the flags, destination signs etc all in one area. Radiating off from this are many small camp zones, perhaps a few acres each, surrounded by trees, fences. There are some seperate rubbish, water collection areas etc. A lot of the campsite lies on the edge of the cliff. There are some toilet facilities but at my last time of a visiting, a group of scouts had set up their own facilities. Interestingly, the camp site is often used by people other than scouts, or at least there were often single tents, one or two tents of adults etc, alone in seperate areas. The church as I recall has an altar devoted the scouting movement as well as about a dozen scout flags and a memorial to Baden powell. Ill try and get as much information as I can to expand the article when I visit in July, as well as some photos of the scouting memoribillia, signs etc if you would like. Hope thats of help. LordHarris 09:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Godminster
... umm, you do know that's the name of a place in England, right? - A l is o n  ☺ 16:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then it'd be blockable indefinitely as promoting a business in addition to using a religious figure's name. Rlevse 16:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a business, it's a place ... in Somerset. How and ever - not worth fighting over :) - A l is o n  ☺ 16:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The link you provided had a page with "order online" tab. Rlevse 16:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a location in Somerset see Godminster Lane Quarry and Railway Cutting. You can also do a google map search for Godminster, England. I also found a BBC report that claimed it arguably had the smallest pub in England.  Note as pronounced the word 'God' in it is about as recognizable as 'Christ' is in Christopher.  Would a user called Christopher be banned or for that matter Godfrey? The business by the way is "Godminster Manor Farm" located in Godminster.--Erp 04:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It could still be seen as promotional. But, submit it to Requests_for_comment/User_names if you like. I'll be on vacation all next week starting Sunday and won't have computer access. Whatever comes out of that I won't object. Rlevse 10:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've brought it up on WP:RFCN in the interests of fairness. Enjoy the break! - A l is o n  ☺ 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:GirlScoutsatNASA.jpg
It looks fine to me. Can you try clearing your cache? --BigDT 03:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Scouting
A while back you (and others who appeared to be pals of yours) refused to accept any mention of Gang Show in this article.

The reasoning employed was that the Gang Show was limited in its geographic range although there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

I now note that you have included (or permitted the inclusion) of quite US centric information such as the suggestion that the use of firearms is a widespread scouting activity and also the use of the term "Camporee" which is I believe is limited to North America.

Before I amend these and similar references can you provide me with any evidence that these are not restricted to a few geographic areas or can I go ahead and include a reference to Gang Shows now? Albatross2147 07:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Double Redirects on Rover Motorsport and Mudbash
Thanks for clearing these up - i meant to do them but forgot about them. :: maelgwn :: talk 13:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

blocking user
Thanks for blocking that user - he was really starting to geto n my nerves, only trying to make the encyclopedia better and he comes around insulting me - fun -_-  Mattie TK  22:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What wikibreak...
and here I thought that somebody would have come up with a way to access the Net from the woods... Which scout camp did you goto?Balloonman 18:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pipsico. Next week the camp goes to Powhatan at Blue Ridge Mtn Council, but I'm not going on that one.Rlevse 11:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

History of the Luftwaffe during World War II
Hi.

Just wanted your opinion on the revamp in this article. I have corrected the omissions you have pointed out. I hope this stands the test. I have put a lot of effort into changing and expanding this article over the last few months, and I hope it can be recognised as a good article. If there are any problems let me know on my talk page and I'll correct them A.S.A.P.

Thanks.Dapi89 19:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See article talk page.Rlevse 11:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)