Rlevse
——————————————— MY TALK PAGE ———————————————
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Home | Talk | About me | Awards | Articles | Contributions | Images | Notebook | Sandbox | Todo | Toolbox |
 Archives |
|---|
Vital articles and Release Version
Hi, I debated about the articles in Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Eurocentreism. How can we add the results in the Release Version.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 15:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Why are you asking me this? I haven't worked that area. What exactly are you looking for?Rlevse 17:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
The BBC source
The BBC source which you have removed from the article was not a part of the conflict. It was removed by Dahn by mistake. See my talkpage for confirmation. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see anything by Dahn that says it was a mistake. The protection is for 24hours, it can be worked out then.Rlevse 20:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- He said the source was okay, but even if he didn't, could you please use some common sense? BBC is usually reliable, is it not? --Thus Spake Anittas 20:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am, you are in the middle of a bitter edit war and I'm forcing a time out hoping to get cooler heads to prevail, everyone needs to calm down. And your "could you please use some common sense" comment isn't going to score you any points. You have a long block history, hopefully you've learned something. If you prefer, I can unprotect the page and then block both of you from all editing.Rlevse 21:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- How long would the block last? --Thus Spake Anittas 21:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Anonimu -- 1 week, Annittas -- one month due to multiple prior blocks and long history of this sort of editing. Take your pick, but note the page is only protected for 24 hours and it such edit wars reoccur you could get blocked indef again. Rlevse 21:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that would be fair. For starters, it was he who removed my sources (vandalism) and committed the first 3RV; secondly, I was the one who asked the moderators to step in, but no one did; thirdly, my block history only contains one such incident, while his block history contains two such incidents -- altough I don't really see the relevancy in that. Anyway, I just wanted to say that both Dahn and he seems to accept the BBC source. If you check the Nicolae Ceausescu article, Anonimu accepted the source, but added his own version of "show trial," which I can also accept. I don't know why, but you moderators come to salvation at exactly the wrong time: when everything is solved, you show up. I'm not trying to be ungrateful, I just think it's funny. In my opinion, I should get 3 days and he should get 6 days, because he was also rude, making a sexual insultive remark by saying "let's get blown." What he means is that I need to get laid. He often insults me this way in another forum and this time, he made this remark on Wiki -- and yet I don't complain about that. But okay, I can wait 24 hours and readd the BBC source, but I don't think you, or any other administrator, have -- or should have --, the authority to place indef blocks on anyone for a simple matter such as this one. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's fair based on your prior block history and follows wiki policy--you have 7 or so prior blocks and he two and you were indef blocked once for several months, all the way to Jimbo. If he and you have a long history of such conflicts, you may want to consider mediation or WP:ANI.Rlevse 21:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're using the American rationale on this; as when one committs three crimes, they go to jail for some 30 years or so. I have read about a kid who stole a bike and got some 20 or 30 years in jail, because it was his third felony. I think this is madness, but what I think doesn't matter so much. Can you show me where this policy says that one can get indef block in a scenario like this one, or can you take actions as you wish?
- As for my past block history, two of my blocks were reverted and Jimbo's block, as I had said earlier, was for something totally different; altough, I'm not sure that would make any difference in your book. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Block
Why have you blocked me? I was not involved in war edits, and I have not broken the 3RR. [User:Afrika_paprika]] did many mass reverts, against my referencied edits. I've defended 4 articles against the vandalism of a notorius troll. That's my right: Afrika is a multi banned user. It was User:AjdemiPopushi, a sockpuupet of him, to report me a a breaker of the 2RR. So I am clean and I did not "plus edit warring". Meanwhile I ws blcoked this usere did sever other vandalism against severe articles. Best regard.--Giovanni Giove 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Ademji has now been id'd as a sock of afrika and indefinitely blocked, but this was not known and in the 3RR report filed. If I'd known that, the result would certainly have been different as there was definitely an edit war on the Ragusa article. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I went on what was known at the time and in the 3RR report.Rlevse 22:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was sure you was just doing your work. Please copy this message on my page. Not there is again the same problem, and the article should be sprotected. It is true; there is a war about Ragusa: that why I did several edits on each single points. All the edits must be referncied: that what I did. Thank you.--Giovanni Giove 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Removing warnings from talk pages
Have the rules changed on removing warnings from one's own talk page? According to WP:UP, "On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon."
The way I read it, it is neither against policy nor considered vandalism for one to remove warnings from his own user talk page. It is merely frowned upon. Has this policy changed? If so, perhaps a change to the guideline page is in order. --Tjsynkral 23:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Think of it this way, if you remove warnings, what is it you're trying to hide? You would merely be putting yourself in an even worse position.Rlevse 23:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- If the warning were to be used against me later, it could be easily retrieved from the history page. I reserve the right to perform "housekeeping" on my own user page. Furthermore when users make incorrect allegations am I supposed to leave them on my User Talk page even though they are false? --Tjsynkral 23:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Note: An incident has been opened regarding this matter. --Tjsynkral 23:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- If the warning were to be used against me later, it could be easily retrieved from the history page. I reserve the right to perform "housekeeping" on my own user page. Furthermore when users make incorrect allegations am I supposed to leave them on my User Talk page even though they are false? --Tjsynkral 23:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Think of it this way, if you remove warnings, what is it you're trying to hide? You would merely be putting yourself in an even worse position.Rlevse 23:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Okay, thanks for the reply. Brain40 [talk] [contributions]
- Well, in my opinion, warnings should be left on a talk page to make referencing easier for the administrators. Well, back to patrolling the recent changes area. Good luck with things. Brain40 [talk] [contributions]
- Could you direct me to the template that says "this article uses content from the 1999 Encyclopedia Americana"? Brain40 [talk] [contributions]
- I don't know myself and a quick search didn't reveal it.Rlevse 23:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Removal of warnings on user talk pages
From what I've seen in discussions on the administrator's forums, the new, but apparently unwritten policy is that editors are allowed to remove warnings from their user talk pages if they want to. Removing a warning is considered acknowledgement by the editor in question that they have seen the warning. Cla68 02:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- So someone gets a valid vandism notice, removes it, gets reported to AIV and the admin checks to see if they have been warned and has to dig through history pages to find it? Ha, I'll stop fighting vandals if I have to do that.Rlevse 02:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with new "rule" or not, just letting you know what seems to be the situation now from what I've read on the admin pages. One of the reasons may be due to instances of editors harrassing other editors with warning banners and then arguing back and forth about whether the warning was justified or not. Cla68 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi there rlevse...I appreciate your work on this, as tj continually removed the warning I attempted to post on his user page...which, ironically, was the 3rr rule on another page. TotallyTempo 02:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi, as a student of the Charter School of Wilmington, I appreciate your help in banning that vandal. --CmaccompH89 02:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- No problem.Rlevse 02:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Scouting / child abuse / censorship
Just seen your note calling me a troll. This is uncalled for:
1) My (extremely cautious) raising of the controversial issue of child abuse on the scouting page is what brought about your comment. The subsequent discussion seems mature and thoughtful so far - by contrast your comment seems unfair and (just possibly) defensive.
2) What exactly did I do to deserve your abuse? Was it raising the issue in the first place? Providing a reference to what seems to be a major US news story? Or was it (and here I may have been a little naive) noticing a book being cited by another editor (on child abuse and scouting) and believing the simple addition of a mention of this book would improve the comprehensiveness of the scouting page (I had not come across the book before it was mentioned in discussion - but I see there is something of a technical problem, in that there is no easy way to list this book, the scouting page having no "Further reading" section, where it might most comfortably belong)?
3) The W page on Trolls says "The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits, than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality." I believe my actions to have been properly motivated: it is inaccurate to ignore the child abuse question; it is true to say there are/have been child abusers attracted to scouting; and the addition of the book mentioned by others would have improved the comprehensiveness of the entry.
4) Part of the subsequent discussion focuses on questions of culture. I am British, and certainly within my culture (perhaps restricted to my age group, young middle-aged) references to "dodgy scout masters" are legion. No doubt other cultures experience things differently. (My being British also inevitably means that "separated by a common language" problems may arise between you and me.)
5) Finally, you call me a troll - and as your experience of W is quite astonishingly greater than mine, presumably this greater experience increases the offensiveness of what must therefore be taken as a carefully considered insult by you. But I do not want to trade blows, which makes it very hard to raise my final (and possibly most significant point) without appearing just to be getting back at you. Please assume the best of intentions when I ask whether there is not, to put it at its lowest, something of a potential conflict of interest in having you (and it seems Jergen, to whose attention I hope you will draw this note) so heavily committed to and experienced in both scouting and W? Is there not a risk of a certain slackening of objectivity? I am not making conspiratorial claims - but questions come to mind of subconscious self-censorship and the wish to protect something you respect greatly, indeed maintain "group norms", despite the potential conflicts between the two groups (W and scouts) concerned. If this comment is old news, apologies: the entries on scouting are so large, long and numerous I haven't checked everything. Testbed
Disruptive editor / revert war / I have reached three so can engage no more
Would you please review Panties in which the editor User:Robotman1974 has repeatedly reverted my edits, calling them "unsourced" and "OR." I have moved the objectionably material to the discussion page until it can be sourced, but Robotman continues to revert my other changes to the page regardless. Robotman will not respond to posts I made on his talk page. He refuses to discuss or reach consensus. 67.101.243.74 22:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- User:Robotman1974 has now posted three different warnings. We both warned the other initially, and after he removed his, I removed mine. Now, however, he has reverted all my edits to the article in question and added these three different warnings to my talk page. ---- I apologize if this is not the usual way to report such activity. Please let me know how I should do so better in the future if that is the case. 67.101.243.74 22:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Rlevse, I have left an explanation of my actions here. Robotman1974 03:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Reply
I find it pointless to create a page just to put a tag on it, whatever is on the talk page is good enough. John Reaves (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Interesting articles
RfA thanks
| Thank you for your support on my Request for adminship, which finished successfully, with unanimous support of 40/0/0.
I will do my best to serve Wikipedia and the community. Again thanks. | |
|---|---|
| --Meno25 08:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC) |
Re: Bcat
Quite honestly, I don't think I would have the time to undertake any substantial bureaucrat work, at this point. I'd probably consider running if there were a real emergency due to lack of bureaucrats; but as long as there are enough to keep things rolling, I don't really feel justified in running just to give myself another title. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding removing barnstar1
I would like say that I am not Djmckee1, i was suprised to get that barnstar and I thank Djmckee1 for it. I hope this clear things with you and Bloddyfriday. Thank You Ambirch1 15:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bhumibol_AdulyadejRamaIX.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bhumibol_AdulyadejRamaIX.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:RopeBridgeOurChalet.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RopeBridgeOurChalet.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add
{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Unspecified source for Image:Jamboree_1999-Czech_Camp.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Jamboree_1999-Czech_Camp.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Arthur_Eldred1912.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Arthur_Eldred1912.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Regading Removing Barnstar 2
I Think that Djmckee1 may of accidently given me that barnstar. Yes I am a very good friend of him, but I am 100% sure that the barnstar was not for me. A mistake that can corrected very easily. Thank You Ambirch1 07:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC) P.S: Congratulations on becoming an administrator! Good Luck Ambirch1 07:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
userbox
Dear Rlevse, Would you like any userboxes made for WikiProject Scouting,Djmckee1 08:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if we need one, sure. But I don't know of any people are looking for at this time. Did you have one in mind? Rlevse 09:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Brownsea 22
Rlevse, According to a training camp I attended as a youth; the original Brownsea trip Lord
Baden-Powell did, he did it with 22 boys. Thus the training camp is referred to as
`Brownsea 22'. I wanted to add "with 22 boys" to the Brownsea reference, but couldn't
without proper sources. Do you have any back-up on this? Or is it a myth?
I too am a Eagle Scout, any help I can render, please call on me.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dnajenks (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
- Afraid I don't have a ref, I have not heard this before.Rlevse 18:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
GA reviewing
Hi Rlevse. Do you mind taking time reviewing my new proposed-GA article? The article belongs to Government Agencies and now it stands alone in that section. You can be assured that there're no long-queuing candidates, except for mine. Thanks forward. AW 16:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've already fixed the refs and found all needed citations. What's the next step? AW 14:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm trying to improve the article as you suggested. However, I still don't understand some points. Can you explain more clearly about the order of heraldry items? And if Guatemala section needs a summary about its main article, so should Iran need, too? If such, the article will become longer. About "Further information: CIA and the war on terror (This article)", I think it originally means more information would be shown in the section "CIA and the war on terror" in the article itself. However, if it doesn't make sense, I have no problem removing it. AW 02:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- You list the heraldy as a/b/c but describe them in a/c/b order. Yes, Iran too, but it's not so long that you HAVE to shorten it, just don't add too much. Yes, rm "this article". Rlevse 02:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- But I don't know what problems with the code.:( AW 02:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't get the question.Rlevse 02:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I mean I don't know why, maybe because of wrong coded. Also, what about this? AW 09:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I fixed the heraldry for you. For Whitlock, you could mention it.Rlevse 11:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I mean I don't know why, maybe because of wrong coded. Also, what about this? AW 09:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't get the question.Rlevse 02:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- But I don't know what problems with the code.:( AW 02:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- You list the heraldy as a/b/c but describe them in a/c/b order. Yes, Iran too, but it's not so long that you HAVE to shorten it, just don't add too much. Yes, rm "this article". Rlevse 02:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm trying to improve the article as you suggested. However, I still don't understand some points. Can you explain more clearly about the order of heraldry items? And if Guatemala section needs a summary about its main article, so should Iran need, too? If such, the article will become longer. About "Further information: CIA and the war on terror (This article)", I think it originally means more information would be shown in the section "CIA and the war on terror" in the article itself. However, if it doesn't make sense, I have no problem removing it. AW 02:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Two things: a) the lead doesn't summarize the article. It should summarize each major subsection but you have it just providing background info, it needs an overhaul. b) how did you come to ask me to help? I don't recall crossing paths with you before.Rlevse 11:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for fixing the heraldry thingy. What a relief, I'm very tired of fixing refs. a) About the lead section, I think it's fairly clear and extensive. It mentions all the fundamental functions of the CIA. If I summarize major sections, I'm afraid it'll become too long. However, it's just my subjective idea and I'll try to rewrite the lead again because you're a much more experienced editor. b) I checked through the GA reviewers participants list and I randomly chose your name. And my choice is completely accurate. Before nominating the article, I think my work is nearly perfect but then you "crucially" point out a bunch of mistakes. Your "evil eyes" scare me off, Mr. Eight-Features. AW 13:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
AIV
Responded. Edit conflict twice. I think things were cleared up, and the username can be removed and not blocked.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Your question
I agree with you on Wikimongers disposition. Seems another admin agreed as well — issuing an indefinite block for posting the password. — ERcheck (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
username
Hi, you have blocked this user for having an inappropriete username, as well as leaving the {{Usernameblocked}} on their talk page, but also used the Account Creation Block feature;which means this user won't be able to create a new account. If there are other reasons besides the username, such as the account being a sockpuppet, a troll, or a vandal, then I the ACB would probroly be justified, I think. I just wasn't aware of anything other than the name being the reason.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, I forgot to take the auto block off. I'll go fix it. Rlevse 02:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Honoring Texas Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients
As a major contributor to the FA Medal of Honor, I thought you might be interested in this local effort to honor Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients from Texas:
- Melvin, Joshua (April 11, 2007). "Marines take on monumental assignment, Spearhead Medal of Honor monument". Greater Houston Weekly. p. page 1AA. Volume 4, Number 15. Retrieved 2007-04-13.
{{cite news}}:|page=has extra text (help); Check date values in:|date=(help)
— ERcheck (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Very interesting, thanks.Rlevse 11:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Your decision on User:Psantora's 3RR violation
Hi there, I question your decision on my report on User:Psantora's violation of 3RR. There is no such a rule that if someone violated 3RR 2 weeks ago, he shouldn't be blocked for violation. I was unable to report him because of the block imposed on me by his report. More importantly, he hasn't realized he had violated 3RR. He needs to blocked to prevent him from further violation in the future. Miaers 14:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- "More importantly, he hasn't realized he had violated 3RR." You admit you never gave him a warning? You miss the whole point of 3RR, to stop edit wars. If he is continuing, submit a new report.Rlevse 14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
He warned me first. He is more aware of this rule than me. I think the rule is the rule. And anyone should be the same before the rule. What I mean is that he doesn't admit his violation even after the warning, I discussed with him on my talk page during my block. Miaers 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Hi. Got your note. I'm taking a look. Check your e-mail in about an hour. — ERcheck (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sent you a note. — ERcheck (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Redundant report
This 3RR report was filed AFTER User:Iranzulqarnain had already been blocked for the same 3RR violation, so you essentially re-blocked that user for the same 3RR violation [1], I don't think that's fair. The user in question is a newbie with 7 edits overall and is not yet familiar with any Wiki rules [2]. There's a lot of newbie biting going on - which makes the newbie bite back. --Mardavich 01:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- thanks for noticing that. I unblocked him.Rlevse 01:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Calobster
Thanks for catching my wrongly place tag on the above page. I was working fast but not well. --Stormbay 03:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Raul
Raul's 6th edit and talk page edits show at least borderline incivilty, which could be interpreted poorly by said person its being directed at.--Wizardman 03:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
3rd Padiham Scouts
I say get rid of the article - it will be included in the Lancashire article when I get to it, but there's nothing that is of value in the current group article for merging, so let it go. -- Horus Kol Talk 06:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- I tagged it with speedy, so I can't be the one to delete it.Rlevse 11:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
ce
Hi Rlevse. Copyediting requests are piling up (have gone from zero for months to about five in the last week—I think it must be due to a certain someone's return :-). I generally don't like to make promises other than to finish the article I'm currently working on, but I'll keep BSofA on my list. Hopefully the ce project helps out. Thanks for asking. –Outriggr § 07:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK thanks.Rlevse 11:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Smile
Djmckee1 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Don't know why you banned this user, but User:DreCosby, whose edits clearly show he's a sockpuppet, is requesting unblock right now because of an autoblock. Perhaps you wish to nab this one as well. Part Deux 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- User:JL71JO is a sock of User:JJonathan. Are you saying User:DreCosby is a sock of him too? Can you provide evidence? Rlevse 23:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Um, they have the same IP, (he got caught up in an autoblock), and the contributions are similar enough by the duck test. Part Deux 10:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- I saw that, wondered if you knew more.Rlevse 11:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Um, they have the same IP, (he got caught up in an autoblock), and the contributions are similar enough by the duck test. Part Deux 10:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The block of the IP expired, as a suspected IP of JJonathan, it was only blocked a week. I have crossed paths with JJonathan socks more than any other. I'll keep an eye on it.Rlevse 11:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Ribbon for today's events
FYI, if you would like to add a ribbon to your user page in memory of those who were lost in today's events, you can use {{Virginia Tech ribbon}} to place a small orange and maroon ribbon in the top right corner of your user page (similar to the {{administrator}} icon). --BigDT 04:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done.Rlevse 09:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- That article, Virginia Tech massacre has thousands of edits already.Rlevse 09:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's just unreal. It had to be s-protected yesterday because it was getting edited 10-15 times/minute and even the admin rollback button wouldn't work for reverting vandalism. I guess if Wikipedia had been around for 9/11 or Columbine, it would have been the same thing. This is probably the biggest national crisis since Wikipedia became popular. --BigDT 15:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good point, I hadn't thought of it that way.Rlevse 16:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's just unreal. It had to be s-protected yesterday because it was getting edited 10-15 times/minute and even the admin rollback button wouldn't work for reverting vandalism. I guess if Wikipedia had been around for 9/11 or Columbine, it would have been the same thing. This is probably the biggest national crisis since Wikipedia became popular. --BigDT 15:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- That article, Virginia Tech massacre has thousands of edits already.Rlevse 09:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)