User talk:Rlevse/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Rlevse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Request to mediate or decide in the article Islam in Myanmar in which you punished me but failed to resolve the issue proper.--Darz kkg 07:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't do mediation. Try the mediation process.Rlevse 11:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I will be out to Camp Shenandoah for the week on Sunday. Please review these standards and post them when you think they are ready. I suggest that we start a whole new section for WikiProject Scouting Manual of Style and post these as separate pages under that.

• Guidelines for local Scouting articles
• Guidelines for references and footnotes

Thanks! --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Ed has done a great job, but I really do think we need to internationalize them before we add them. I am not sure how best to do this. --Bduke 23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Randy won't be back until tomorrow afternoon. The references and footnotes guideline should be universal, but the local Scouting articles guideline is definitely not, and clearly states such in the opening message box. I welcome any discussion on how to open this to a world-wide view- I suggest using the guidelines talk page. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ed, this is superb. Bduke, Ed clearly states the local article guideline is for BSA and it should be used as a springboard. This was developed as such because of severe continuing problems within the BSA area of the project. As for internationalization, you are more expert in that area than I and if you'd like to do that, please do so and we will add it to the Manual of Style. I'll make our MofS a subsection of our Rules and Standards.Rlevse 11:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The camp lies on the southern portion of the island, slightly to the right of centre. Its about a 15 minute stroll from the main visior centre near the castle in the east. If you look at the map - http://www.multimap.com/map/places.cgi?client=public&lang=&advanced=&keepicon=true&quicksearch=brownsea+island its those two white squares to the far west of the castle, but not the one at the very end. There are several other clearings as well as a few small buildings which are not marked. The stone is at the centre, although it reads stone, the position is not marked on the map. LordHarris 19:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC) The stone is a li

Welcome back. The article is shaping up. — ERcheck (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have sent you an email with a map from the National Trust, the camp is clearly marked. Hope that helps. LordHarris 12:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am asking if you could give East Carolina University a peer-review. I want to add the article to the Good article candidates list. Thank you, PGPirate

THere is no see also section. I think all that bolding violates the Manual of Style.Rlevse 19:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have listed this article and the user under this name at WP:COIN. Bearian 17:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey there. I finally bothered to look into the whole Sahraoui Scout Association thing, and it looks like neither Chris's nor Juiced Lemon's edits are really verfiable. I left a long message about the situation at User talk:Juiced lemon under the "Prod" subheading. Would you mind taking a look at the situation? I'm not intimately familiar with Scouting organizations abroad, and my French and Spanish are kind of rusty. I'm not even going to bother trying to read the Arabic. ;) But that's what I gathered from the sources I looked at. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 13:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for helping. I'm looking into it to and emailed Chris. He says he has letters on this so I suggested uploading to wikisource. Yes, this region is very hard to get any info on, much less Scouting and the fact that its control is disputed doesn't help. Some other project members are helping too.Rlevse 13:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Scouting 2007uniform.jpg needs a source + fair use rationale. Other than that, the image copyrights are fine, but the images are really rather jumbled, particularly on large monitors. Maybe some of them could be turned into a gallery or moved to the left side? Also, I brightened Image:Brownsea_Island_Scout_Camp_2.JPG a bit. It was rather dark. --BigΔT 18:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed the FU on that image. Wim or I will play with image layout.Rlevse 18:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

On a wide screen (2000px) indeed, the article doesn't fold well. Originally, I did a right-column of pictures, which is the most common method of article illustration but result in this behaviour. Randy made a two-column layour, which is frowned up in WP:MOS. I tried a gallery, which is discouraged in WP:Galleries. Bottomline, there simply are too many pictures. I propose weeding. Watch me. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's what i'd figured we'd have to do. Though, I wish there were a way to keep the modern pic of the campsite today in.Rlevse 20:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It's done. I tried it out on wide screen with small font (not really useful for reading), and did not see cluttering. Actually, the two pictures that I removed will not be sorely missed. Perhaps after the summer, a better picture of the campsite can be put up, e.g., one showing a real campsite with lots of tents and stuff. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC).
  • To be honest, the pic that you brought back in? It doesn't really add any information to the article at all: it is just a green field! I narrowed the table next to it a little bit more to allow the picture more room. But unless a better campsite picture (see above), I wouldn't mind getting rid of this one, even brightened by Big DeltaT. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

I agree it's not the greatest pic of the campsite, with tents or Scouts in action would be great. But since we don't have one of those, let's leave it in on the idea that it's better than nothing as it at least gives people an idea of what the area looks like. Do you know if Harry is a real British Lord? I'll ask that if he's ever there to take the desired pic, but no need to make a special trip or anything.Rlevse 22:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't buy the 'better than nothing' this time: why does a swath of green give anyone a serious idea? And I think Harry is British alright, but I'd guess his rights to any title end with his recent BA degree. Fortunately for him, as I understand it, he just has to pick up his camera, walk to the quay in his home town Poole, and take the 2 mile ferry to the island. He may well have to walk more ON the island than TO it. That doesn't take anything off that his actually doing it, making very nice pictures out of it, AND making them available in the article is very highly appreciated. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

I'd still prefer to leave it in for now.Rlevse 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't delete it, just pointed out a different point of view on it. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

That's fine. I highly respect your opinions on these matters. No problem.Rlevse 23:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, sorry to disapoint but I have no claims to a lordship. LordHarris is just an old gaming username of mine. As for the photos I've no plans to go again for several weeks as I'm a bit busy with work and other things. I'll be off again to Brownsea in the first week of August however, as a few friends of mine are planning a camping trip ourselves. I will make a determined effort to get some of the campsite when its packed full (given the centenary and the possibility of sun...). Ive supported the FA run and heres hoping it passes. LordHarris 00:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering the current trend of going hard against FU, I was already expecting the response we now got. I'm expecting we'll have to give in, as indeed FU states that the said picture is only allowed on the one article that it is about. Any other (illustrative) use is out. I let you do the math. Pity, but that's the way things are going. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC).

Yes indeed a pity, I'm well aware too, but I won't go down without a fight-;) You are indeed likely correct on having to get rid of the pic, but if you don't mind, I'd like to wait til BigDT answers my query. He's often been aware of things I'd never think of since pictures are his specialty. He's come through many times. Rlevse 21:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. 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 drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 23:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed Image:Signe-de-piste fin-de-piste.jpg while going through the images Gadget850 asked me to look at. It's a JPEG of two circles. Do you know what the dimensions are supposed to be (how thick the circles are, spacing, colors, etc)? (Is there a photo of the original or anything?) If so, I can very easily make an SVG version. I made a couple cool football SVGs - see Image:American football positions.svg - and I can easily do one of this if you know what it should look like. --BigΔT 23:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

afraid not. as it's an old symbol, there's probably no standard. Rlevse 00:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I found it! [1] I'll make an SVG later on tonight. By the way, can you take a look at my note on my talk page about merit badges? I don't know how much this would be worth pursuing - I really don't know the answer to the question - things published pre-1978 without a copyright notice are supposedly public domain, so some of these patches might be - we need a lawyer to figure it out, though. --BigΔT 00:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice job on the headstone.Rlevse 00:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I had this on my todo list for a while. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I just created {{Cleanup-Scouting}} to tag articles that need to be brought in line with standards. Please review it before I announce it.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, but it says the same thing as our attention tag, just more detailed and obvious.68.10.192.194 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What attention tag? I only see a stub tag. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Go to Template:WikiProject Scouting, Category:Scouting_articles_needing_attention, and see Talk:John_Cornwell as an example. We could use both this and your template.Rlevse 12:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not know the project template could do that. I think my template is redundant then. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to delete your templage?Rlevse 15:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and Category:WikiProject Scouting cleanup- both are redundant. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please delete all the revisions to my userpage made by RugbyMan 005 as he is a Molag Bal sockpuppet and it includes my first name, after this they will need oversighting, please delete them quick or just delete my userpage. =). Please be quick.... Rlest 12:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted your whole page. You can recreate it easily. I also block the guy for 48 hours.Rlevse 12:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

He's an admitted sockpuppet, changed block to indef.Rlevse 15:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WPS:TEMP: "{{Scouting Barnstar}} This is for outstanding contributions to Scouting on Wikipedia. We don't actually use this. See recognitions section."

So- do we use this template? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I never use it, I just drop the image on their talk page when I award it.Rlevse 15:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to the IP edits on the article, after discussion and warning to the editor, especially with respect to threatened deletion, I've temporarily blocked the editor. An odd bunch of edits — adding duplicate information, then blanking. Oh well. — ERcheck (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Golden Wiki Award
		For your exceptional contributions on getting Brownsea Island Scout camp to Wikipedia:Featured Article status. LordHarris 14:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! for all your help with photos.Rlevse 15:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome and thanks for the scouting barnstar. I'll try my best to get some of the centenary. LordHarris 17:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a gift to the Scouting wikiproject. You can make a DYK out of it, or otherwise, while I'm out vacationing in the next weeks. See it as a challenge: FA before I'm back ;-). PS. I'm working to get the nice pic from scoutpedia.nl. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

Even I can't manage that-;) But I did tweak it and nom it for DYK.Rlevse 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I was even giving you plenty of time: here in the Netherlands, we typically have three or four weeks summer vacation. ;-) Have a nice time without me! Don't make too many FA's or else I can't keep up with you (failing miserably on the edit count already) ;-) 'See' you again in August. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

Hi Rlevse. I'd just like to check with you on good practice for renaming an article. I don't expect it to be controversial. Should I give notice on the talk page? How long should I wait? Kingbird 21:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Put it on the talk page and one our project announcement section. A few days to a week should be sufficient.Rlevse 22:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's now turned into a move, but it's up there on the talk and project pages. Thank you. Kingbird 01:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Randy, I just hadn't put the Scouting stuff in there (though you know I always will). It was just cart-before-the-horse-it's in there now. As to how a communist can be a Scout, remember the period, there were not yet Pioneers. In Russia, the rightist Scout leaders went into exile, the leftist ones became Pioneer leaders. Scouting has always been apolitical-any Scout camp I've ever been to you'll have political discussions of all stripes, even spirited ones about who should and should not be a Scout. My county is the second-most Republican county in the US (our stretch of interstate is the Ronald Reagan Highway), yet one of the best Scout leaders I ever knew, who died two years ago, perennially tried and failed to run for political office here as a socialist-leaning Democrat. It takes all kinds. Chris 03:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

ps-you had asked me a while back to do something when I create a new "Scouting in..." category, but I can't remember what and I can't find it in my archives. Tonight I created Turkey and Latvia. Chris 03:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• now also Category:Scouting in Slovakia Chris 22:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

True Communists are atheists....????Rlevse

At one time or another, various small communist communities existed, generally under the inspiration of Scripture.^[1] In the medieval Christian church, for example, some monastic communities and religious orders shared their land and other property. (See religious communism and Christian communism) These groups often believed that concern with private property was a distraction from religious service to God and neighbor. (Encarta) Chris 19:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Randy- the bot added Category:Scout logos as well, so you need to delete it. When you just update the template, the image is now in both the Scouting logos cat and the BSA cat. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Randy- I took the liberty of deleting your comment on Wikipedia:Non-free content/templates. That was the wrong page to complain about the CfD. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

probably, but it felt great.Rlevse 15:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Earlier to-day, you speedily deleted Matthew Bashir over my objections on the talk page. The article was labeled as patent nonsense, but did at one point contain a fairly coherent stub on a Star Trek character. It appears as though someone blanked the page excepting the speedy template before you got to it; I can't tell because I can't see the history. I'd encourage you to look into this and undelete the article. Many thanks, -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 05:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The page was blank when I saw. I looked Bashir up on Google and it doesn't return one single hit, so it fails the notability test and can also be deleted for that. The old version of the article says Bashir only made one appearance. I was going to block User:Omega11Tango for replacing a whole page with a db-nonsense tag rather than just adding the tag, but he was already blocked for 24 hours for misbehavior.Rlevse 09:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Some ramblings on categories: User:Gadget850/Categories --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The tag is Glhangon, but that logo has already been improved by the Graphics Lab. Chris 21:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I took the image from the official site for the 8th International Vietnamese Jamboree. Look at the bottom of the page. Thank you very much for the fix. Motthoangwehuong 13:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I did send an email to ask for a Public Domain release on the picture, but I am not sure if I will get a response. I will let you know how it is going. Motthoangwehuong 03:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to join in the Scouting project but I don't think I have time slot for it. Currently I am very busy with articles related to Scouting in Vietnamese. I am almost the only one who are concerned with the topic "Scouting" in Vietnamese wiki. Motthoangwehuong 03:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the right way to cite http://cbs.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/story/10270463? It doesn't have a personal author. It is an AP story on CBS sports. Do we credit just AP (they wrote the story) or AP + CBS (even though CBS is doing nothing more than hosting it)?

Right now, it uses this:

"Wake Forest coach Prosser dies of apparent heart attack at 56". Associated Press. CBS Sportsline. 2007-07-26. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

That doesn't make too much sense, though ... the AP isn't a work ... maybe something like "AP via CBS Sportsline" would make more sense? --B 19:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule on this that I know of. Though I'd agree the AP isn't a work. A work is more like the US Army being the publisher and it's work being their Center of Military History and the article URL being their page on Asian-American Medal of Honor recipients. Also, all web refs should have the accesdate parameter, which shows up as "Retrieved on ..." in the reflist. If there is no author shown, just leave those fields blank. Your idea of "AP (or Associated Press) vis CBS Sportsline" is a great solution. What article is this in?Rlevse 20:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Skip Prosser. --B 22:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it only had one ref prior to him dying. Notice how I had to move the ref in the body of text, it's needs to be at the first appearance prior to reusing it. Also, none of them had an accessdate. I'd let the death news settle down prior to trying to fix everything. Also, I just looked at Virginia Tech massacre and it's close to FA, but still needs some work.Rlevse 22:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

		The Good Article Medal of Merit
		For meritorious contributions to Wikipedia, including 8 or more Good Articles as of today's date. Good on you! Ling.Nut 02:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I´m thw1309. I saw, you worked on the protected template. Please could you also change the background colour, because Template:Dab-Class has the same colour. --Thw1309 10:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Thank you! --Thw1309 16:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I saw you revert my edit at Bhumibol Adulyadej. What's wrong with that? I removed the disputed image by MKPluto who is a sockpuppet and uploads tons of disputed images on Wikipedia. What's your point?

Almost forgot, since you're an admin, you might need to read. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CenturyRain, Administrators's noticeboard, and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/FlamingSpear; those links are already on the image descriptions. Thank you for your hard work as an admin. --Manop - TH 15:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting links. They are likely just a part of the editors who don't want to see any criticism of the Thai King, treating him as if he were a God. Then there're the editors who trying to outright smear the king. Wiki policy is to allow opposing views to be represented and to disallow those views is against policy. Many articles have entire sections on the controversies on a subject. What all this boils down to is NPOV. I see nothing wrong with that picture and I try very hard to stay neutral. You may also note I've reverted much outright vandalism on the King's article and was a key in getting it FA status. If you go through the article history, you'll probably find other socks related to the links you provided, I suspect Viruch is one of them.Rlevse 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What I've decided to do, with the new evidence you showed, is page protec tth article, without the said image in it. The protection expires in two weeks.Rlevse 20:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Those people are reverting each others. One side's spoiling, and the others protecting. These things happen for the king and the royal family. Thank you again. --Manop - TH 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

After I went through the article history, I think I know the sockpuppeteer but still needing the solid evidence. By the way the Thai king issue is extremely sensitive to every Thai people including me. Viruch is not one of those socks, he/she may be a typical Thai people. I don't know how much you understand this issue.

No offense, an example is that a burning USA flag won't belong on the USA flag article; or someone making fun of 9-11. I would call those vandals. --Manop - TH 22:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the input. These are all reasons I protected the page. This will give time for people who really care to calmly express their opinion on the talk page. We'll have a better idea of what's going on then.Rlevse 22:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm including this text due to the same topic. I want to clarify my point on editing on the page and was reversed. The main reason is not that I'm a Typical Thai (not a typical sensitive as a normal ones). I just take a look on that topic and many of Mr.Patiwat's articles and found that he's already included some improper information for being a good encyclopedia. There're scatterd information which came from rumours, unofficial interviews, and self-analysing things, which I don't think that would be a proper ones for encyclopedic references. As of my respect on some of the information that he's researched and contributed so many laborious works to Wikipedia, so I just want to warn the audiences to be cautious on reading the topic only. :-)

For me, the point is very simple. I really respect the purposes of Wikimedia.org that want Wikipedia to be a lagrgest Encyclopedia on the net, but for whom? I supposed that it should be a site for the whole audiences not directly for only your contributors, though how many things he/she did to the community. Please observe the articles from this Patiwat guy and you will find the attacking opinions on many of his imagined political opponents. That's improper things to be included in any good encyclopedia. Viruch 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! The original resolution of the main image (Bhumibol2542.jpg) in the infobox in the Bhumibol article is 120 x 160 pixels. Yet the image is displayed in the infobox at 250 pixels. The result is hideous pixelation (see examples below). I'd like to show the image at the original resolution. But you've protected the page the the next couple weeks. Could you make the edit yourself? Patiwat 08:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

File:Bhumibol2542.jpg

File:Bhumibol2542.jpg

Sure, it's a legit request.Rlevse 10:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)...if you get a real svg image, it'd size without pixelation.Rlevse 10:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• You can remove the example images if you want. They seem to be messing up the layout of your talk page. Patiwat 17:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because content of an article is unwelcome to you doesn't mean you can remove it. The information on baden-Powell's links with homosexuality and fascism are documented in his biographies. Just because you are a scout and this knowledge makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean you can remove it. Removal of this content from the article constitutes censorship. I am watching edits to the article and willr eport you to a moderator if you make another removal of cited content from the article as a form of censhorship. Please also remember the 3 revert rule - if you continue to undo my cited edits without rationale or exaplanation, wikiepdia rules are quite clear that you will be banned. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't be so presumptuous.Rlevse 14:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That image is from the Bain News Service collection, which gifted all rights to the Library of Congress many years ago and may be used freely. See [2] --Tom (talk - email) 16:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

But the other tag says pre 1923, not possible. Can see the Bain's case.Rlevse 16:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your endlessly resourceful work on Harry S. Truman, much of it on tasks that absolutely nobody else wanted to do. Many thanks BYT 03:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to add this to the article, but since it's locked, I thought I'd let you handle it.

The article mentions that he receives fees from attending university graduation ceremonies. But the more important thing is that he doesn't just sit around - he hands out diplomas. The truly stunning fact is that over the past 57 years, Bhumibol has handed out some 470,000 diplomas! (reference: http://www.ptwit.ac.th/gra49/index.htm) That's nearly 1% of the current Thai population. It seems to me an insightful fact, if only because it means that he's personally come into contact with a significant percentage of Thailand's educated elite. Patiwat 17:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Check out this trick someone told me about a month or so ago - http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=Wilsonnflfootball.jpg&w=120 . Change the name in that URL to be the name of the image and the width to be the width you are trying to get it to display at and it forces MediaWiki to regenerate the image. --B 19:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you like Image:GGGSgreengold.jpg in either PNG or SVG with a transparent background? If you look at Image talk:GGGSgreengold.jpg, you can see the image background in the messagebox. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, Gadget, thanks. Let's go with SVG as that seems the trend, or both if you're really motivated. See both Image:GGGSgreengold2.jpg and Image:GGGSgreengold3.jpg on commons, we have reverse color versions.Rlevse 13:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The image on Commons has been deleted. You can try again. MECU≈talk 13:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Here you go:

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice, just so you know, not a big deal, but the one you have as "2" is a "3" commons and the one you have without a number is a "2" on commons, their companions that is. Thanks.Rlevse 15:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)...since i didn't upload them i rm them from my cat on commons.Rlevse 15:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I marked the JPGs with "Vector version available." --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Just found an interesting connection working the Silver Buffalo list:

1941- Daniel A. Poling - Minister, editor of the Christian Herald, president of Christian Endeavor, father of Clark V. Poling who later died on the USAT Dorchester as one of the Four Chaplains.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of these guys. The Post Office issued a stamp in their honor.Rlevse 19:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've known of the Four Chaplains for quite a while. It took me about an hour to get a good reference to connect the father and son. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for thanking of me. I feel honored. What does the role entail? Johntex\^talk 01:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds great, count me in. Johntex\^talk 02:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. I will start with those tasks. Johntex\^talk 02:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I've done much on FAC, but now I've got a bit of free time, so I'll have a go. I'll start working on this later today (UTC). --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 04:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Randy-thanks, I am aware and am watching them. Each is sourced and establishes notability, and have more than some Scouting bios, so I will watch when the time comes. Chris 21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Randy, did you mean Malaysian? That's different, I am trying to get more info on them as we speak. Chris 21:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Article looks great, and I think it's ready for nom. Thanks for all your hard work. BYT 09:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No prob, whenever you guys are ready. BYT 11:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to spam an ad to you, but I beleive a PBS special on Ben Kuroki is to be aired on September 17, 2007. Not positive all PBS stations will be airing it, but it looks like it will be on air that day at 7 pm EST and 8 Central and 9 mountain.[3]--MONGO 18:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cease your vote stacking efforts, or you may be blocked for disruption. >Radiant< 12:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• And you're still missing the point. What I object to is not the existence of these pages, but the fact that they have an official-looking tag falsely proclaiming them to be guidelines in the MOS. Fix the tag and there's no problem. >Radiant< 08:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

We did fix the tag. Plus see the project talk page. Note that you wrote "In a fit of bureaucracy and instruction creep, the Wikiproject Scouting has decided that it's a good idea to write their own guidelines, their own Manual of Style, and their own process for merging and deleting pages" on the MfD, which was to delete the pages, not the tag. So I find your prior statement hard to believe and as an admin you should know better than to try to delete an entire series of pages when your only objecttion (according to your above statement) is the tag. Then a bit later I see you found that we'd come up with our own solution which you now seem to agree with.Rlevse 10:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You should realize that your own actions here have been entirely inappropriate and out of line. You disrupted the sensible discussion we were already having on the topic by starting to revert everything without bothering to discuss this yourself, and further aggravated the situation by one-sided volatile canvassing in a number of places. If you hadn't escalated this, we wouldn't be having this mess. Furthermore, you have proven yourself to be ignorant of MFD, which has a precedent of being used to block ill-conceived guidelines, as well as ignorance of the fact that regular users are quite capable of page moves. The above condescending remarks are only an added immaturity on your part. Altogether your behavior these past days has been deplorable, lacking in judgment, and altogether disgraceful. >Radiant< 12:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. You had to have been looking at a mirror when you wrote that. And just prove I wasn't fabricating stuff as you so adamantly claimed, check out WP:MILHIST#Guidelines and all the sublinks thereto. Rlevse 12:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

See here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Administrator_Category_Proposal. We agreed on something, Yeah!Rlevse 13:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for registering a 'support' on the Reagan FAC page. Best, Happyme22 18:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi... I think the bot's been down for several hours. --Rrburke^(talk) 13:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Why?Rlevse 13:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't know. Admins have been asking on WP:UAA for several hours, though.

As for company names, I agree: WikiLeon just thought going straight to WP:UAA might be considered biting. My experience is that as soon a an account with a company name is created, the user almost immediately sets about writing a spam article about the company, and going to WP:UAA just avoids the trouble of speedying the article when it comes -- which it invariably does. --Rrburke^(talk) 13:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, we should nip it in the bud.Rlevse 13:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please undelete Image:Cedar Badge logo.png? There are several reasons for an image failing to display, such as glitches in the Mediawiki software or your computer. Did you try purging the cache before deleting the image? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Everytime I've seen this problem, I check it from different computers, purge the cache, etc. The one solution I've seen that always works is to upload the file as a different name (such as with a '2' appended). Other solutions I've tried rarely work. From what I've seen, the problem usually stems from a glitch during the initial upload, such as with a burp in the Internet connection. But to answer your request, yes, I'll undelete it right now.Rlevse 20:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That's odd, because it displays perfectly for me. Perhaps your ISP has an interesting caching setup. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Now it displays for me. Go figure. Rlevse 22:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I actually had it on the main page and the talk page but After Midnight deleted the request from the Main page before you saw it. Then after you, NawlinWiki redirected the whole article to the Morgellons article which does not mention Enigmatode at all. There are no cites in the Enigmatode article and it seems to be original research that is all non-scientific hypothesis. I don't think it is encyclopedic material, and it seems to be a content fork to the Morgellons article. Not sure how to handle this.Ward20 12:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

:) Actually, I did think it was nonsense and completely inplausable, so that is why I tagged it and did not want to incorporate it into the Morgellons article. There are other people editing Morgellons, so maybe they will chime in. Unfortunately, opinions are very polarized on the Morgellons article (but not about Enigmatode, yet) and it is kind of a mess right now with administrators intervening. Well, we will have to be civil about it and work it out. Thanks. Ward20 13:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's suitable even for a redirect. It should be deleted. It's an original crackpot theory by a Brad Drew (aka Dr Drew Sabe), now only on the web via google cache: [4] Herd of Swine 15:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It is nice to have Wikipedia administrators that keep things running smoothly. Ward20 03:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rlevse. Sorry I never got back to you about Truman. Do you still have needs there? I think I saw Hoary working on it. In any case I'm probably due for a c-editing break, but let me know. –Outriggr § 03:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Just give it a look over if you would. It looks ready for FAC now to me, but others are better at that than I. Thanks.Rlevse 09:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on this decision [5], you blocked the wrong user [6]. -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up but this in at WP:AN/I now. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I did block the wrong guy. I removed it, protected the page, and apologized. I should stay away from 3RRs-;).Rlevse 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I must observe, I think, that you are laboring under a significant misconception of adminship, viz., one that embraces the idea that admins are fallible and ought not to bristle at their actions' being questioned. As you should be aware, if an admin action you have performed is challenged, you must, even if that action both trivial and erroneous, reply dismissively and immediately close any attempt at AN/I, AN, etc., to invite more users to consider an issue. It's humility and civility like yours here that make me fear that people have forgotten what we're trying to do here—we're building, of course, a battleground of drama, the center of which, in fact, is supposed to be AN/I. You people with your respect for other editors are ruining things for the rest of us; for shame! :) Joe 07:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but your going to let the other user get away with it? Davnel03 11:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I ended up deciding since three users were involved to protect the page. This is an option available too and is quite common. SlimVirgin made a similar decision around the same time on another 3RR. If the other person continues on this or another article let me know right away, I check wiki often every day unless I'm out of town, and I'll take a personal interest.Rlevse 11:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Aah, OK, if I see him making bad edits, or reverting good info, I'll leave a message here. Thanks anyway. Davnel03 12:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just sent you an e-mail about something that concerns me - please read it. Davnel03 12:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but I won't be able to access it until I get home tonight from work. If it requires quicker action, you'll need to utilize another method.Rlevse 14:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I totally just now noticed you were an admin, no idea for how long ..but congratz! :) --Naha|^(talk) 21:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I've been back contributing for a few weeks now. I had gotten burned out on Wiki there for awhile ..sorry I kind of just disappeared :P I still keep an eye on the scouting stuff and may re-involve myself again more in the future. Currently I feel I am needed elsewhere: The Pro Wrestling WikiProject is completely disorganized and this is reflected in the articles it maintains. In addition, the participants don't seem to all quite mesh together and most have conflicting views (even regarding the interpretation of Wikipedia policy) as far as how articles should be structured, what constitutes relevant information, what is and is not notable, sourcing and well ..pretty much everything really. I brought this up on the Project's discussion page in somewhat of an informal manner a few weeks ago (bringing up specific areas I saw confusion in), but only a few people responded to it, and most of the people I hoped would chime in, did not. Its a mess and I'm trying to get off my rear end and do something about it, but it will be a big undertaking, especially considering the dissension among the ranks that I foresee when I officially attempt the reorganization and restructuring of the project. Anyway ...thats what I'm up to! Hope all is well with you :) --Naha|^(talk) 23:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The AfD discussion was improperly listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 21 resulting in two separate discussions being started, one on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 21 and one on the article own AfD page. The discussion has now been properly listed. Please add your comment again. Dbromage [Talk] 01:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, with regret I have created at thread about some of your wikisource contributions on s:Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Scouting_evidence. If any of it isnt appropriate for Wikisource, I think it can be moved onto Wikipedia or Commons. w:Arthur Rose Eldred documents looks appropriate, and if the community opinion is that should be kept, I will help transcribing it in order to atone for my sins. :-) John Vandenberg 02:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how docs fit into commons or wikipedia. See your page and source too.Rlevse 02:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

PS, that's about everything I've put on wikisource. Maybe I'll just stop putting stuff there.Rlevse 02:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(from User talk:Jayvdb): If you regret it so much, why did you do it? This is where I was told this should go. Thanks for telling me otherwise, I'd not know.Rlevse 02:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I regret it because the material you put on Wikisource is useful, if only for Wikipedia; and listing it on "Proposed deletion" makes work: for you, myself and others. But the image guidelines on Wikisource is (in short) that all uploads should go on the commons; that is why I suggest commons is the right place for the documents, if an PD license can be obtained. Basically you need to host this material somewhere; if it isn't transcribed, it's stretching beyond the scope of Wikisource. But don't let it bother you; the deletion process on Wikisource is a lot less frantic than here on Wikipedia. John Vandenberg 03:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If images should go on commons, why do they have image uploading enabled on source?Rlevse 10:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point; I recently started a discussion thread on that topic: s:Wikisource:Scriptorium#Encourage_uploading_to_commons. Sadly, nobody has responded. In any case, I have been working on auditing all images on Wikisource and moving them to commons or deleting them based on their importance. If you want any of those images moved to commons, and can find an appropriate license (see also commons:Commons:Licensing), you can tag the images on Wikisource to speed up the process. John Vandenberg 08:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think somebody needs to have a really good discussion with Cowboycaleb1, as he seems not to understand what a talkpage is. He keeps asking a question on someones userpage (see here), which is being reverted by numerous users. However, Bobo54 has just reverted my edit and as said to let Cowboycaleb1 ask the question despite not him using the talkpage. Any chance of the two being sockpuppets? If they are not, can you tell Caleb to use the talkpage, after all, I am unwilling to get into any sort of conversation with him after what he sent me. Davnel03 13:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I took it to WP:ANI, and Bobo54 has been blocked indef. as a sock of Cowboycaleb1 (see here). If I get any e-mails of harrasement, I will forward it to you. Davnel03 16:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm not able to do much during the day. I'll for sure look at it more tonight.Rlevse 18:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've sent you an e-mail. Apologises, I deleted the e-mail. If he sends another one, for sure I will forward it to you. Davnel03 07:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Anyway, Caleb's been blocked for 24 hours for disruption on someones talkpage. Thanks anyway. Davnel03 09:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Henry Fonda has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. You are receiving this message because you have been identified as one of the article's main contributors. Grim-Gym

Pardon me, but out of curiosity, how did you determine that this user might be Alan Rachins himself? He's only made a couple of edits, none of which directly suggest any link. GlassCobra 12:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Primarily because the account name matches the article name. From my own personal experience, when this occurs it is often the real life person, like User:WayneRay, who is known to actually be Wayne Ray. Sometimes it is a die hard fan or close relative, but I thought it worth checking on.Rlevse 12:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. How do we know that other guy is actually Wayne Ray? GlassCobra 12:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall much of the details as it was looked at some time ago, but there was a lot of evidence to support it, like the guy loaded pictures of himself from when he was kid, family snapshot types of things. Not likely anyone but the real person or a close relative would have such stuff.Rlevse 12:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A similar circumstance is User:JustinBerry who has edited autobigraphically on Justin Berry, an article that's seen its share of controversy & contention. His identity was verified through the Foundation via the OTRS email system. --Ssbohio 15:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I have no idea where that all started. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 02:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with your rationale for following the redirect & deleting Eagles Nest Airport, I'd like you to reconsider. The article is breathtakingly poorly written, but it does factually cover a real airport in New Jersey. I moved the article to the correct name and did some minor cleanup & tagging on it. It was created by one of a set of accounts I've been tracking, all of whom appear related in some way, and who create articles about places or things called Heesham, none of which ever check out with other reliable sources. Their favorite comment appears to be "he da sham." Nontheless, this particular article needs cleanup, but not deletion. The airport is on the list of airports in New Jersey, and is referenced in the West Creek, New Jersey article. Please undelete the article. Thanks! --Ssbohio 15:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If this article gets recreated, it needs to have a different name anyway as there are at least five Eagles Nest Airports. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How about a dab page @ Eagles Nest Airport and the above-mentioned article at Eagles Nest Airport, New Jersey? While I'm here, I'll commend to your attention this AfD. Da sham goes on... --Ssbohio 15:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Da sham is not cloeseable yet. FOr the airport stuff, gotta go now, I'll come back later.Rlevse 16:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Made it under name Eagles Nest Airport, New Jersey. I didn't make the dab page because the other eagles nest airport articles seem to not exist. I also wikilinked in the two places you mentioned.Rlevse 21:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've helped you guys out and made a disambig page for Eagles Nest Airport. Also, the proper dab-type title would be Eagles Nest Airport (New Jersey). I have moved it and will keep the redirect for now. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 22:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, sorry I forgot to put it in parens form. Thanks.Rlevse 00:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you guys have it all covered. Once the flames go out over at Justin Berry (they never will), I'll be able to relax a bit.  :-) Thanks to all, and feel free to step into the maelstrom at Talk:Justin Berry. I'm feeling like some "blank slate" minds could sort out the impasse there; I've been string at it too long. --Ssbohio 22:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Just thought you might like to know that discussion on WT:UAA suggests that this might have been an inappropriate block. Cheers. SamBC(talk) 16:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

tks, I left rationale there.Rlevse 16:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 35	27 August 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Helicopter parent"	News and notes: Court case, BJAODN, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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 06:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I ran a number of keyword searches and couldn't find anything.  :-( Can you possibly re-mail the request to permissions@wikimedia.org and cc: me? My email address is listed atop my user page in the about box. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad to see the article passed. I have no idea how my edit on the FAC page managed to remove your comment. [7] My apologies for not noticing that happened. Overall, it's an excellent article, though I'm still not sure the atomic bombings section is quite right, now that I see it without any numbers. Also, I think more needs to be mentioned about debate within the Truman administration (e.g. "Committee of Three") on use of the atomic bomb. The sticking point was whether to demand an unconditional surrender, or allow the emperor Hirohito to remain as symbolic leader, in a constitutional monarchy, as the Japanese wanted. In my sandbox, I have some suggestions for the section to include some of these details. I will post on the article talk page for others to consider. --Aude (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I figured the removal was an accident. Yes, if you have improvement ideas, please post them.Rlevse 00:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done so on the talk page. Obviously, the atomic bombings are controversial, even so today, but trying to suggest some key points for improving the section. Changes to the section need to be handled with care, to make sure the section remains agreeable to all. --Aude (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I really like working with you, and I like working on articles where people aren't bashing each other's brains in. What do you want to tackle next? Here are some ideas from my side...

Pale Fire The White Album Jimmy Carter Beowulf United States presidential election, 1948

Peace, BYT 10:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Actually, right now I'm working on Frederick Russell Burnham. I just listed it for GA. If you want to dive in and help, go ahead. I'll work on one of yours when I can too.Rlevse 11:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Rlevse, thanks for the email explaining the background on all the editing. Its brought me up to speed much quicker! I've been looking through everything and aside from the fact the article is slightly POV biased generally I agree with your take on it. As far as I can see theres no intentional POV in the article just the whole thing in its entirety reads off a little like an advertisment. I've cleaned up much of it which was in the leading section by simply editorialising the content. I think its important we keep in proportion the criticisms and praise the organisation has recieved. Obviously its credited for helping many youths develop morally and mentally, but it has also been accused by many groups left and right on the poltiical scale of some fairly widespread descrimination based on members gender, sexual orientation or religious background. I think provided we write about exactly what has happened on both sides of the debate without putting any kind of twist/spin on it then the article should be fine to have the POV tag removed. As for heqwn, hopefully once this is done he will accept the changes and the POV tag can be removed easily, if he persists to the point of excessively POV pushing then we may need to intervene for the sake of the wiki, what do you think? WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 18:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like to see this worked out and not escalate.Rlevse 18:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I made no changes to the rankings (I wouldn't know how). As for deleting other comments, I didn't do that, either. If somebody's signing my name, deal. Trekphiler 18:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, User:LoOkLeFt might have a point here (although he might not know it). The Conference was very important, and a big deal was made about it. Both at the time, and in the history of Truman. The article, Harry S. Truman, only uses it in the context of other thoughts, not in a complete paragrahpical item that it should be. I think there should be a short paragraph about it before the atomic bomb paragraph to set the context. Give 'em hell! WikiDon 21:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that. I also rv'd because of his poor formatting, etc. Pls keep it short, the article is already huge.Rlevse 21:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: Time Magazine alone has 91 articles in 1945 alone referencing Potsdam, Search Time WikiDon 21:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I know, it is at 110-kb, and Article_size#A_rule_of_thumb says: "> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided up"... I have been thinking about how to break it up, for some time, making Presidency of Harry S. Truman its own article, and then maybe Political career of Harry S. Truman, putting in everything from Jackson County judge to Vice Presidency. Thoughts??? WikiDon 21:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave it as is. It follows the Gerald Ford pattern, which is also an FA. If it's gutted too much, it'll lose FA status and that we don't want. Only about 59k of the article is prose, the rest is refs, templates, categories, and info boxes. The max preferred prose size is 60k, so as long as we don't add huge bits it should be okay. Rlevse 22:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I also thought about just moving the Administration and Cabinet box and Supreme Court appointments off, but they probably don't account for much. Thanks, dial-upWikiDon 22:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee, nobody else ever cared about headings before, in over three years on here, grumpy! WikiDon 22:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Who's calling who names?Rlevse 22:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

/me does not understand you :)--{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:NAMESPACE}}|User talk|{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:PAGENAME}}|OsamaK|OsamaK|OsamaK^{Reply? on my talk page, please}}}|OsamaK}} 10:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 36	3 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
WikiScanner tool expands, poses public relations problems for Dutch royal family	WikiWorld comic: "George P. Burdell"
News and notes: Fundraiser, Wikimania 2008, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 04:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Randy, how do we delete just one version of a page. See the last revert I did on Scouting in Northumberland which libels the DC. I think that needs completely removing, but I can not find how to do it. --Bduke 00:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never had occassion to do that, but my understanding is to go to the article, click on history, then select the the version you want to delete (by date/time), then click delete. It should work. If it trashed the whole article, you can undelete it. Let me know how it goes.Rlevse 00:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That deletes the whole history, but you can then restore all versions except the one you really want deleting. You have to tick the box for all versions you want to restore so it is tedious. There must be a better way. --Bduke 01:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd suspect so. Maybe someone else will know. I'd like to hear if you find a better way.Rlevse 01:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

With FireFox, you can click on the first revision, then shift+click on the last revision and that will select all of them. I don't think that works in IE ... at least it didn't with IE6, though I have never tried it since I got IE7. --B 01:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. It looks like you closed this discussion. Just a reminder to please remove the CFR tags from the category pages when they are kept. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

oops.Rlevse 19:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You listed this as CC, but in the text you say it's PD from the scouting museum and the link you provided doesn't display the image. Pls provide the link to the image and proof it's PD. Rlevse 13:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the info page. This was a photo that Max had taken in the Scout Museum with his own camera. Max had copies made to send personal correspondence, he passed away in 2004. I wasn't sure how to list it, but it wasn't professionally taken or copyrighted. As Max has died, I am not sure how to prove this is the case, except to possibly have the curator of the museum corroborate this information, but my understanding is that this photo was specifically chosen for the museum website specifically for the reason that it is the only recent non-copyrighted photo they had available. They have one other "front shot" of Max, but it was taken some 20 years earlier. They also have a photo on exhibit that was taken of Max with Lady Olave Baden-Powell, which was again taken with Max's camera, but as it is on display, I am not sure how the rights would be listed for this, as it is part of an active museum display, although I could call up and ask the curator to scan that one and provide it if desirable. As for the CC, I wasn't sure the proper way to list it. I wasn't the originator, Max technically was, so I couldn't call it "own work." Any suggestions as to what is the best action for this? YIS RobHoitt 18:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've asked our project image expert to look at it. We had to get it correct so sometime later down the road someone won't have a good case to have it deleted.Rlevse 18:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... something I think needs to be clarified is that every creative work (photograph, book, song, etc) created or published in the US since 1978 is automatically copyrighted whether it has a copyright notice or not. If you walk outside and take a photograph of a tree, you have created a copyrighted work, even if you never assert or enforce your rights. This is different from trademark, where you must aggressively assert your rights or you lose them. So if you take a photograph of a tree and email it to 100 of your closest friends, you still own the copyright to that photo, even if you didn't mention copyright in your email.

The copyright of the photo would belong to the author - not to the museum. In this case, I am not 100% sure, but I believe that it would be considered a work for hire - see [8] 201.b - in which case Max would have owned the copyright. So now that he is deceased, his heirs would own the hire unless he specifically willed the copyright (not just the physical copy of the image) to the museum. Is his widow available and could she be asked to release it under a GFDL-compatible license? --B 21:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, Max died not only after his wife, but three years after his son Alan. (Interestingly useless trivia, he was born exactly one week after Ronald Reagan, and died exactly one week after Reagan died, not that that is relevant to anything...) So I am not sure there. He left most of his Scouting effects such as his medals and uniforms and such to the Scouting Museum. I could try contacting some of his extended family, but most weren't involved in Scouting to the degree Max was, but I want to check with the Museum first. All of his medals, uniforms, and his entire Baden-Powell collection (given to him by Lady Olave herself.) were all given the the Museum. He was the primary benefactor, and founder of it, and gave a lot of his personal money and time into creating the museum, and seeing that it sustained. RobHoitt 02:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know ... this question is outside the realm of anything I would have a clue on how to deal with. I would say ask the museum if they own the copyright to the photo and if so, if they would release it under the GFDL. We don't know whether he transferred the copyright to the museum in his will or not ... we can only go off of what they tell us. --B 03:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have an almost identical copy of the photograph here at home, except that the copy online was signed for Joe Kabat, mine is generically signed. Would it be better if I took a photo of the one that I have and post that instead? RobHoitt 19:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I will be at the Museum in late October, and intend to look into this further, amongst other things. RobHoitt 19:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ask User:B, he knows way more about images than I do.Rlevse 20:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 37	10 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
An interview with Jimbo Wales	WikiWorld comic: "Godwin's Law"
News and notes: 2,000,000, Finnish ArbCom, statistics, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 20:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Rlevse's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Rlevse! Love, Phaedriel 00:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Dear Rlevse, when I saw your last message at my talk page, a few weeks ago when I was on a self imposed wikibreak, I considered many ways of telling you how fondly I remember all the patient help you kindly gave me long ago, when I was striving hard to get my portal up to Featured; how it succeeded, in no small measure thanks to your thoughtful advices; the support you offered me at my RfA, which was running at the time... to sum it up, how the mere mention of your name is enough to immediately draw a smile on my face. Yet, like those things that one wishes to be really meaningful, I've kept postponing this visit until I found a proper way of thanking you in a truly special way. So I decided, enough time has passed already; and I cannot think of a better way to renew our friendship than telling you all these thoughts frankly and openly, while gifting you your own special day. You really deserve this modest award, and so incredibly much more, my friend. I hope that the future finds us talking, and working together closely, for nothing would please me more. Love, Phaedriel - 00:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rlevse! I just saw your block on a vandal called KidsClub1, and I was wondering: if you have used an account which has been blocked, is it possible to create another account (on the same IP)? Btw, congratulations with your Awesome Wikipedian award! Keep up the good work! Cheers, Face 19:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tks. It depends on the type of block issues. For vandal only accounts, I always "hard block", so they can't create another account. This is also called Autoblock. See WP:Autoblock for more info.Rlevse 19:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have found no birthdate for Max and two death dates, June 9 and 15, 2004. But then you said it was one week after Ronald Reagan on both, which was (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004). THese would be Feb 13 and June 12. I have no way to verify Feb 13, but June 12 doesn't match JUne 9 or 15 (see note on his talk page too). Can we conclusively settle his birth/death dates?Rlevse 09:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

On the talk page I have identified the correct born/death dates and how to confirm them. That should do the trick for that... I'm still working on the photo angle now. RobHoitt 19:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I will have to amend my previous comment, he was born 9 days after Ronnie, and died 10 days after him. So "about a week" would have been more appropriate in hindsight. ;) RobHoitt 19:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response, I know there's quite a bit of cases on that noticeboard. Anyway, i'll take your advice and step back. I suppose once I you get into it with someone it's difficult to step back and look at things, but I see the reasoning behind letting it be. His comments can't actually damage me anyway. I will let you know if this continues and thank you again for the help! MezzoMezzo 20:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you please consider helping me with this that is related to this? I know you may be busy, so only if you have a little time. Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's quite a situation you're in. I just skimmed it for now. It'll take awhile to read to and digest as there is a lot of commentary and documentation.Rlevse 10:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you got an indef block before I could read everything.Rlevse 17:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

thank you for the warning. i admit having attacked MezzoMezzo but i do not see any disruptive edits from my part. i would also ask you if saw his personal attacks on me and what you did about that. finally, i thank you for doing your best here. please give me an answer.--Uss-cool 14:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If he has made personal attacks on you, pls provide diffs. I did suggest he leave you alone, or words to that affect.Rlevse 14:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

thank you very much i really appreciate your neutral intervetion. please can you tell me where i should put the diffs of his personal attacks that i see in talk page! i do not know how, i tray wikipedia: notice board but i do not know how. soryy to bother you again if you are realy busy--Uss-cool 14:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Go to the page in question, click history, select the desired versions, click "compare selected versions". Copy the URL from the address bar and paste the link like this format: [9]Rlevse 15:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

thank you so much, please can you do me one last favour. MezzoMezzo deleted one section in the Ibn Baz article for notability issue. I followed your advise and kept my argument in the talk page. But just to see if i am wrong, can you helping with your input heream i wrong or i have legitimate request. please advise me. thank you a million.--Uss-cool 16:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, if you're an admin., then why report a username you think is inappropiete, instead of just blocking it yourself? There's nothing wrong with that, it just seems unusual.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 19:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To try to avoid impulse decisions, get a second opinion, and avoid accusations of abuse of admin powers. Now if really blatant, like a user named "I'm going to kill you", I wouldn't hesitate to block without reporting. Rlevse 19:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. An extra measure to avoid admin. abuse. I could never see you being desysoped. Keep up the good work.--U.S.A. (talk contribs) 19:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Tks.Rlevse 20:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I did question Klingsporn as I thought the user may have meant "spawn" but good to know that porn is a Thai surname-ending. Thanks SGGH ^speak! 20:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you review this please. I'm inclined to unblock to allow the user - the ip is self identifying as Daniel Seaman an important Israeli government official and states that he has only edited his own article. I can't see whether the ip is fixed and given the request to allow them to create a user-name for individual accountability, I'm minded to release the block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This IP has edit other articles than Daniel Seaman. See [11]. I do not know enough about determining dynamic vs static IPs on wiki to make a call on that. This is all regarding disruptive editing, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#COI_SPA_disruption_on_Aaron_Klein_bio. Is it possible to release it to allow this guy to make his account and then reapply the block? Thanks for checking with me.Rlevse 17:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think so. I'll unblock to allow the user to make an account and then soft block for the remainder of the original block. This may leave the ip open for a while but with the article semi protected, I see no real risk from this. Cheers for understanding. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's okay with me.Rlevse 18:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

All done now. User account created, ip reblocked and long message about COI/BLP and where to go for help left on the new user's talk page. I'd say that this was sorted. Thanks again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I kinda fixed it, apparently a pre tag had to be added in. These also cancel out all the brs though... I actualyl just found this out myself, so no worries. Wizardman 23:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support at my RfA. Regards, Jogers (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have placed a # in the comment above mine to fix the numbering. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Mate Thanks For Deliting The Article Asdfghjk . it was obviosly an attak page , it annoyed me because an article i had made was delited because there was not enough information but this one had not been delited trfccurt

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rosil Al Azawi. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Evil Spartan 19:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, I took the easy way out of thanking everyone by borrowing someone else's thank you card design...but know that I sincerely appreciate your support and confidence in me! Dreadstar † 23:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 38	17 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon	WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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 03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is getting a lot of anon vandalism at present. Should we semi-protect for a week to see if they calm down? --Bduke 11:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Only until the main page run is over, or shortly thereafter. You can try it, but someone else may unprotect, there have been long running debates on whether or not to protect the main page FA. Rlevse 11:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Duh! I had forgotten this was on the main page. I have been fighting off vandals at much the same level on another article all day and finally semi-protected it. I guess we just have to keep clearing up the mess. Me, I'm off to bed very soon here in Oz. I'll check in the morning though. --Bduke 12:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. All in a day's work! Keep up the excellent work yourself… Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 12:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for making it possible. Peace, BYT 10:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem.Rlevse 12:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rlevse, I noticed you fully-protected Harry S. Truman. I thought you may want to know that it's currently the featured article, and in accordance with WP:NOPRO, the featured article is rarely semi-protected, and is almost never fully-protected. I thought I'd contact you about this, as it was requested at RFPP for it to be unprotected, rather than undo your protection. Acalamari 22:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Striking; not necessary anymore. Acalamari 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rlevse,

I just wanted to let you know that I unprotected the Main Page FA, Harry S. Truman (except for move protection). While full protection may be necessary for a very short time to clean things up in case of a massive problem, leaving the article fully protected for over an hour is probably a bit extreme. Remember that we do need to balance the need to counteract vandalism with the goal of showing newcomers that this is an editable wiki.

Also, if you do need to protect in the future, be careful about the reason parameter for the tag; WP:ERRORS had a complaint that the protection tag read "This page is currently protected from editing because stopping 2 days constant vandalism." — TKD::Talk 22:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, and it only took four minutes for vandalism to restart. Showing newcomers massive vandalism is exactly what wiki wants. Right.Rlevse 23:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But we're both an encyclopedia and a wiki. Unless the Foundation decides to change the latter, there'll always be vandalism to deal with. Today was bad with lingering vandalism, but most of the time, it's caught pretty quickly on the Main Page FA. Fully protecting, which locks out all but roughly 1,300 editors, seems a bit extreme. Even for run-of-the-mill articles, this type of new-user vandalism is addressed with semi-protection and/or blocks, never full protection.

Maybe flagged revisions could be useful in the future. — TKD::Talk 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But we also should not have to have multiple people constantly fighting vandals to keep TFA in a coherent state, a massive waste of resources. In addition what about the new users you so highly tout coming in and seeing vandalized FA's as TFA? Great first impression. This argument has come up multiple times. A large reason that the policy is as is is that Raul654 backs your viewpoint. We protect the main page photo the FA uses, so what's the diff in protecting the article? That's doublethink. It's because of the position you're defending that flagged revisions and the German approacha re getting so much support.Rlevse 01:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we currently protect everything that appears directly on the Main Page (the entirety of the main featured article itself doesn't). Jimbo himself said that he was optimistic that flagged revisions would allow the opening up of the Main Page. As for measures in the interim, I can see that we won't agree here, but let me just clarify that (a) I'm not happy about the fact that a lot of the edits will be vandalism (who would be?), but I accept that we will need to handle it as long as anonymous editing is a Foundation issue; and (b) I do support the idea of flagged revisions as an alternative. — TKD::Talk 01:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey there -- after reading your note I took a look briefly at the article following the edits of the 19th, assessing possible damage to the "grounds" after the merry tramplings of various newcomers, some apparently on drugs.

Vandalism, hallucinogen-inspired or otherwise, did not seem to have stuck anywhere. (By the way, I agree with you about the importance of protecting mainpage feature articles.) Anyway, I did not spot any obvious problems on the first pass, but will take a closer look tomorrow, Godwilling. Peace, BYT 03:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologise I should have checked, though perhaps it would be useful procedure if a name gets moved to RFCN from UAA that a comment to that effect is made, so RCFN'ers knows. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 03:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA ssems to go well, but as you may notice, I already managed to attract an editor that opposes me over a content dispute, more like a policy dispute (see Talk:Compact Disc). Any advice on what to do next? I don't know what to do anymore. — Edokter • Talk • 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ignore him and leave that particular article until RFA is over. If you keep responding, he'll just get the ammo he's looking for. I think you'll be fine. Yes, I have watched the RFA every day.Rlevse 22:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll do just that and let his comments speak for themselves. — Edokter • Talk • 22:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's best in these sorts of cases (trolling, POV pushers, etc). They usually shoot themselves in the foot.00:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that you deleted a stub article title Research-based reading instruction. The only summary provided for why you chose to delete it was describing it as "nonsense."

To give you a bit of background, I created the article because I am working on a series of articles about reading education, a complex and controversial topic. The Reading education page is already quite long, so I am creating new articles for subtopics that can stand alone and linking them together with a Navigation box (see Reading education). I have seen this kind of organization used for a number of article groups that I admire.

Would you give me a little more information about why you described the stub as nonsense? Do you have suggestions for a better approach?

Thank you,

Rosmoran 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall the article in question, but IN GENERAL, if an article is very short, not comprehensible to laymen, and/or unreferenced, someone will flag it as nonsense. If it is a fringe theory, it is especially susceptible to someone deleting it. You may want to create the article on a subpage of your user page until it is ready for "prime time" too, then no one would mess with it. Hope this helps.Rlevse 19:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The nom has been sat there for a while !! [12]. It fooled me too! I though Giggy had gone back to his old name or something until I checked the history. No issue though. Cheers my man, and thanks .Pedro |  Chat  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Volume 3, Issue 39	24 September 2007	About the Signpost

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

Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You said that Sue's edits overlap?

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

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

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

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

IP4240207xx 22:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

He's back...:

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

IP4240207xx 21:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way,

Hwæt. We Gardena in gear-dagum,

þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,

hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

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

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

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

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

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

Literally, it says,

What! We of the Spear-Danes in old days

of the people-kings, power heard,

how the princes brave deeds did.

It sort of means,

Listen!

We have heard of the glory in bygone days

of the folk-kings of the spear-Danes,

how those noble lords did lofty deeds.

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

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

Hi there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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