Jump to content

User talk:Rlevse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hmm... (talk | contribs) at 02:58, 11 July 2010 (→User stats, editors and outing prevention). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


——————————————— MY TALK PAGE ———————————————


User:Rlevse User talk:Rlevse User:Rlevse/playground User:Rlevse/awards User:Rlevse/files Special:Emailuser/Rlevse Special:Contributions/Rlevse User:Rlevse/images User:Rlevse/Notebook User:Rlevse/sandbox User:Rlevse/Todo User:Rlevse/Tools
Home Talk About me Awards Articles eMail Contributions Images Notebook Sandbox Todo Toolbox
My Admin Policy: I trust that my fellow admins' actions are done for the good of Wikipedia. So if any of my admin actions are overturned I will not consider such an action to be a "Wheel War", but rather an attempt to improve Wikipedia. If I disagree with your action, I will try to discuss it with you or with the admin community, but I absolve you in advance of any presumption of acting improperly. We should all extend the same benefit of the doubt to our fellow admins, until they repeatedly prove that they are unworthy of such a presumption. For every editor, I try to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and expect the same in return.


“Dog” The Teddy Bear

Re: Hmm

I stand by my comments, as I believe that they are an accurate representation of the facts. In the future I will be restricting my edits to non-controversial and non-DYK issues, as for this and a number of other reasons, I have lost faith in the DYK process. Kind regards, Quasihuman (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreements happen all the time on wiki. It's inherent in the process and I've had my own DYK run ins, but I still enjoy it. Here, you're basically saying "if DYK/wiki doesn't agree with my views, they're hosed and I'm not participating". That's your choice but you're setting yourself up for failure within the wiki model. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your definition of failure may be different to mine; mostly, I'm happy with researching and editing articles, I have no real desire to "succeed" in any way other than contributing to an article in a way that makes me happy. My attempt at reviewing DYK nominations was an attempt to learn more about what makes an article good, and to develop skill at critique which could be applied to my own work both on and off wiki. Thanks, Quasihuman (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for all the good work you are doing on DYK. I can see it's very hard and time consuming, and want you to know it's appreciated. Crum375 (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, that's very kind and much appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, particularly for sorting out the leftovers at the bottom of the pile that no-one else seems to want to touch! BencherliteTalk 18:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why thanks again, and yes, we can use more help in the leftovers. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK miss

I just saw that I overlooked my DYK notification and that you deleted the nom. The hook was actually properly cited by the closest subsequent reference, which cited several consecutive sentences. I didn't really develop the article, but the hook was O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But there is still the busted ref, number 1, that is used twice. It renders a "server not found" error and I don't think it should be in DYK in that state. If someone can fix that I will put it into a queue. NRHP probably rearranged their web site or there's a typo in the URL. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a look-see. The record isn't digitized yet in the NRHP/NPS system and the old NRIS system seems to be down either for the moment or good, not sure which. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried again and FOUND the link, from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the newly found link to the Illinois Institute of Technology Academic Campus page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that's giving me an "HTTP status 404 error". Would you mind making it a ref but leave out the URL? — Rlevse • Talk • 11:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, gimme one second. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misunderstandig, but it's ref one Tony and I are talking about, not ref 3. I've reset the version. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've marked that as a dead link and put the hook in a prep queue. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oooops! I just picked the ref that was listed as #1 on the page. My mistake, but at least you know where to find a link when you need one. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision deletion

For this DIFF----moreno oso (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

either the diff is wrong or it was already done. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

request by user:congressionalstaff

Good day Rlevse may I respectfully request your kind assistance as an active editor of the Wikipedia article List of United States Naval Academy alumni (legislators) and as the one who worked to have it promoted to featured list on Wikipedia. I would like to include the picture of a noted alumni who had set a record not only during his stay at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis but also made historical impact as a politician and public servant in the Philippines, Congressman Roilo Golez. While at the academy he excelled in academics as a consistent Superintendent's List midshipman, in sports becoming a four-year undefeated academy boxing champion in his weight division setting a record in then more than 100 years of academy boxing, and in leadership having held the position of Company Commander which is a rare distinction for foreign midshipmen. In the Philippines, he had a long and productive career as a public servant having been elected in landslide victories in 1992, 1995, 1998, 2004, 2007, and 2010, serving as Representative of the City of Paranaque in the 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th and 14th Congress of the Philippines and will be serving in the incoming 15th Congress of the Philippines on his unprecedented sixth term in office as a congressman. He is also the President of the U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association, Philippine Chapter and is a Life Member of the U.S. Naval Academy Alumni Association. He had also served as the President of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines, Governor of the Philippine National Red Cross, and President of the Amateur Boxing Association of the Philippines. I had tried to include his picture but was instructed by MBK004 to start a discussion on it first. Thank you very much in advance for your time and invaluable inputs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Congressionalstaff (talk • contribs)

He certainly deserves an article but I'm not sure about a photo on the list. He's mentioned in the narrative above the list but most others aren't. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Rlevse thank you very much for your prompt response. May I ask what would be the standard or basis required or observed by the Wikipedia community in placing the photo of a US Naval Academy alumni beside the list, in addition, for an alumni not so included to have his picture also placed beside the list. It would help a lot of people researching on the subject matter to have the picture of the mentioned alumnus right there on the article itself, it is a short list after all and the picture will just be small for which the space beside the table is ample enough to accomodate. At the very least, it could accomodate one more, please. Congressionalstaff (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need for calling me sir ;-) One thing is that there are already pics there and people really don't like for the row of pics to run below the list of names so. One would have to be swapped out. I suggest you start a chat on the list's talk page, post on MBK's page to see what he says, and see what other people say. Leave the talk open at least a week and we'll see how it's going. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks I really appreciate your comments and will do as advised, btw I just checked the article's page again List of United States Naval Academy alumni (legislators) and the list of names now run quite below the row of pics on the side admitting perhaps the placement of two more pics without running below the list of names. I hope this request for one more pic may be given due course by the Wikipedia admins, sysop such as you and the rest of the Wikipedia community. Thanks so much, I'm learning to appreciate the quality and amount of collaborative work that goes into every article on Wikipedia. No wonder it is of the status it is today as a widely used and most visited reference website. Congressionalstaff (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another Keegscee Sock

The socks keep breaking through, User:Xobni lluf is the newest. Kinda sad the user just doesn't seem to be smart enough to get they aren't welcome. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fastily blocked them, but the rangeblocks don't seem to be holding them back. They must be using other proxies. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New one: User:Starbrighttonight. He claims he doesn't cause any drama, I actually cause the drama reporting him. Stupid sock is stupid. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, multiple providers. Did what I could on these too. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Wikipedian

Hi Rlevse, that is extremely kind of you, and very much appreciated. Beyond that, I'd like to thank you for undertaking the TW effort in general, which I am sure helps spread good will around the project. I just hope that between the tireless work you do at DYK, the TW, and other wiki-things, you get a chance to take time off. Thanks again, Crum375 (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ursula Buckel

Thanks for approving her (and others) so promptly! I'm used to waiting for days and weeks until someone looks ... and didn't want to nominate too late. I was planning to expand both the singer and the cantata, promised. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving my talk page

Just wait a few days — I archive at the end of every third month, so it will be archived by the end of the week. Nyttend (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a new hook for St. Joseph's Church. Thanks for the note; I proposed the original hook because I couldn't think of anything better, but I think my new proposal is better. Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for persisting and putting up with me on this; the final result is much better because of your help. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood

The article was split from the main article with the intention of condensing it like I did with the 1960s and 1970s. Unfortunately somebody nominated it for DYK.... Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well Gato disapproved it. So now the main needs compressed to a summary or the fork needs deleted. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Happy Merovingian's Day!

Hi, I really appreciate the recognition, thanks very much.
Best regards and happy editing! --Merovingian (T, C, L) 01:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update balance

I notice you seem to have prepared a few updates recently with more than four bio hooks. An update should never have more than four bios, unless it's absolutely unavoidable (ie, nothing but bio hooks left). Given that there are plenty of verified hooks at Suggestions ATM, it's not as if there aren't plenty of other hooks to choose from.

And BTW, don't forget to choose a funny/quirky hook for the last slot - I've just noticed a few so-so ones lately, although I don't know whose updates they were. Gatoclass (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Recognitions

I put those guys up there because Ed did go ahead and barnstar them. If you want to change to your sig that's cool.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed put them there with his sig, then you changed them to your sig. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Appreciation

Hi Rlevse,

Thank you so much for the barnstar! I found it very encouraging. Your "Wikipedian of the day" initiative is a great way of telling other editors that their years of contributions are appreciated. Kudos for promoting cooperation throughout the project.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bhumibol Adulyadej/archive1

I have nominated Bhumibol Adulyadej for a featured article review. Savidan 21:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long overdue. I gave up trying to save it long ago. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter

We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), Colombia ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) New South Wales Casliber (submissions) and New Orleans TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Bavaria Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17

Me day

Though I know not why (or even how) it came to pass that I was selected as a "Day" recipient, thank you. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC closed

Hi, in your ARBCOM hat - I was looking for some feedback on on the way forward as the RFC discussion has closed concerning what we are to do with the low results returned in the checkuser and oversight elections "Immediate steps" poll by FT2 and is in need of assessment and the next step, whatever that is to be, regards.Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's not much of a consensus there for anything is there. Considering there is a dire need for more CUs and OSs, that is indeed a conundrum. We're discussing it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your attention. Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK prep 2

Hi, not sure if you've started trying to compile Prep2, but I just uploaded a set there. Sorry, I think I forgot to save the Inuse template since I don't see it in the history. –Grondemar 16:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No biggie, I'll put mine in extra. Tks for letting me know. I am pulling a set now. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True/Slant

Hello. I'm a bit concerned about the True/Slant matter, and the way it was handled. First, for reasons articulated there by a number of editors, I don't think there was any legitimate BLP issue. It is not enough for one to claim there is such an issue; that must in fact be the case. What was argued -- that the hook had no BLP issue, and most of the article underlying the hook had no BLP issue, but one sentence in the article did have a BLP issue, because that sentence said a person held a sign with a spelling error, is not IMHO a legitimate BLP issue. The BLP argument was used by the same editor in an AFD discussion. He called it a "clear BLP violation". Not one editor agreed with him. The article was kept a "Keep". Here, it is even more attenuated -- as the phrase is not even in the hook (though I obviously feel were it in the hook, the answer would be the same). The hook was approved. Gato said no decision can be made, as conversation is ongoing. Then, with most of the editors disagreeing with Gato, you come in to the still-ongoing-discussion and close it as disapproved.

If Gato was wrong that the editor could not approve the discussion, it should have been approved. If he was right, because the conversation was ongoing, then you also should not be able to close the discussion as a disapprove.

IMHO. Respectfully. I would ask, for the foregoing reasons, that you restore the discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP standards for DYK, since they appear on the main page, are higher than for article space. I'm not about to put that on the main page with all the ongoing concerns. That is alone is enough to disapprove it, but in addition nor will I keep it there on hold for as long as a BLPN takes. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"All the ongoing concerns" have been demonstrated to be just so many words IMHO, and in the opinion of most of the editors in that discussion. The editor who posed the same concerns at AfD was informed by lack of any agreement that his assertions of "clear BLP violation" were just words -- not the case. I see the same here; even worse, as the hook itself lacks any such claimed violation whatsoever. The standards applied at DYK (which you refer to) are reflected at the DYKs that I pointed to. They reflect that the higher standard you refer to allows for hooks describing people as 10 most wanted fugitives and as be-headers (with pictures to boot), and these hooks are among those we boast about as having the most hits. This clearly falls well within that standard. I don't think its even close. I'm concerned as well with the double standard -- the approver cannot close the discussion because it is ongoing, but the non-approver can? I'm struggling to appreciate how that can be. Thanks for your thoughts.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not changing my mind. Recall the Arabian DYK issue. That's two BLP-related DYK noms with significant concerns you've been at the center at in as many weeks. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. With the same Gato -- whose edits are discussed there--at the center of it. And the other hook was one that was added to a queue, but then you deleted from a queue--so you were also at the center of it.

I fail to see how I am being treated consistently, since you promote for DYK an article that says "Montoya had previously been investigated in July 2006 for sexual assault that involved vaginal penetration on Nevaeh, then 23 months old", and that's just fine. But when I have an article that mentions a spelling error, its not. I'm slightly troubled that there may be a double standard. And that you've again not indicated why you can close a conversation in mid-discussion, but an approver cannot. I would like to appeal this matter -- what would you suggest is the appropriate manner? I would like it to be reviewed by people other than those who have given us and Gato awards -- third parties who are more arms'length -- as I think we can then get the fairest result. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the hook used in Neveah's article, you're putting the problematic bit right in the hook. Spelling has nothing to do with it. The Arabian thread is where I learned how much the DYK BLP standard is higher is. I explained why I closed this particular nom. If you want more review, go ahead, but again, I'm not changing my mind. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totally untrue. Let me elaborate on one thing I said above about ongoing BLPN, I'm not putting an article with a BLPN up as DYK hook, not even with that alt hook. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel we must be speaking different languages. You, above, said "That was not the hook used in Neveah's article, you're putting the problematic bit right in the hook." Focusing on the True/Slant hook(s), for the moment, there was no BLP problem with the hook(s). One was only even claimed (without support at the AfD, and without consensus support at the DyK discussion) as to the underlying article. But that's certainly not the standard applied at DyK, as is evident in not only your DYK where the underlying article speaks of alleged vaginal penetration of a 23-month-old, but in any number of others which (as yours) speak of things perhaps slightly more unspeakable than a spelling error. Nor have you stated what the standard is, or where it is written.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move along. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what that means. I had thought we had a misunderstanding, and sought to clarify. You seem to be indicating that you are not interested in responding to my request for clarification. I had thought that under wp:admin, it was the least I could expect, especially as you seemed to confuse whether the True/Slant hook(s) had a putative BLP violation. I gather you are not inclined to do so.

Just so I'm clear, my concerns at this point are as follows.

  1. I don't think there is a legitimate BLP concern, for the reasons stated by me and others, both in the two DYK threads and at the AfD.
  2. I don't feel there is any "higher level DYK" concern in these two hooks, as evidenced by a) the level of DYK concern about underlying articles evidenced elsewhere, b) the level of DYK concern about hooks that were far more negative about living persons, c) the fact that nobody has indicated why a spelling error in an underlying article violates such higher standard, and d) the fact that nobody has articulated precisely what that higher standard is, and where it is reflected.
  3. I'm concerned that Gato is applying a higher standard to my DYKs than is being applied to others.
  4. I'm concerned that you are doing the same.
  5. I'm concerned that after my first DYK was put in queue by the editor who pulled it out, you reverted him, and now after an approving editor is reverted on the basis that conversation is ongoing, you disapprove the hook even though conversation is ongoing.
  6. You appear disinclined to respond to my efforts to learn where that standard is stated, what the standard is, and what I am missing in the comparison between the True/Slant hook and your hook -- which had a much more BLP-sensitive accusation in it.

Obviously, these issues are more than DYK or BLP by themselves can handle, and I think it best not to separate them. I would like to proceed in a manner that is agreeable with you, if possible. To keep the discussion centralized, do you think that AN/I would be the best place to go? Or RFC? Not necessarily as the final level, but as the next level?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained myself, you're not listening we're going in circles. Move along. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll move along, as you suggest. But just to be clear -- I've articulated above just where you have failed to explain yourself. IMHO, of course. I won't repeat the items, as they are delineated clearly enough above, and I don't wish to trouble you. I gather you have no view as to the best reviewing forum.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User groups

Hi. Could you recover Brandmeister's user rights for this alternate account of mine? CU may endorse IP match. Twilightchill t 19:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. CU confirmed. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See this for the record — Rlevse • Talk • 19:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prep Extra

Sorry if I cut you off in editing that template. I forgot to finish it and came back to fill in the remaining spots not really knowing that you were already on it :)--White Shadows There goes another day 22:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ;)--White Shadows There goes another day 22:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lambert for Did you know?

You seem currently busy editing. I updated the phrasing of the article about Daniel Lambert to "prison warder ('gaol keeper')", to avoid ambiguity.

This change should be done on the QUEUE for DYK, imho, but I don't know how.

(I thought Lambert was a association football (soccer) goal-keeper, which is exactly what Wikipedia suggests if you search for gaol keeper!)

Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I've undone it; please don't make daft edits like this. A gaol keeper has nothing in common with either a prison warder or a "corrections officer" (whatever that is) other than both working in custodies of some kind. – iridescent 23:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clear this guy ran a prison. Use whatever term for that you guys like. FYI, "corrections officer" is a modern day US term for someone that keeps an eye on prison/jail inmates, which Lambert does seem to have done. I've fixed the queue hook so that gaol no longer goes to a redirect but directly to prison. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A gaol keeper owned a gaol (not a prison, which in this period is a hard-labour institution rather than a town lock-up) and took a per-prisoner fee from the local town or sheriff. All an eighteenth-century gaol keeper has is common with a modern-day prison warder is that they both worked in a place where people are locked up. – iridescent 23:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'd say gaol needs its own article or a section in prison — Rlevse • Talk • 23:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a problematic one; "gaol" today is the British-English word for "prison" (the labour-camps no longer exist), and that's the sense in which most people will be searching for it. We do have an (very unsatisfactorily-titled) article on the old-style gaols and bridewells at Village lock-up, but that needs a huge cleanup; it can't be moved to "Lock-up" because "lock-up" itself also has a new meaning in the present-day English system (the cells in police stations where recently-arrested people are kept).
The problem is that the only people regularly working on 18th-19th century England are myself and Slim, and we both have a limited amount of time on our hands; plus, policing and prisons are one field where Wikipedia's coverage is massively skewed towards the US (that prison warden article doesn't even mention the rest of the world), so the "obvious" links often point to wildly misleading things on US posts or buildings with the same name but completely different functions. – iridescent 00:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that is problematic. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's really ironic is that the US split from Britain before the 1839 restructuring of the British penal system, and thus preserved the gaol/prison distinction; Prison includes a long section on Jails in the United States which explains the difference perfectly, but obviously can't be used here because it's not in the US... – iridescent 00:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK : Recaredo Santos Tornero

Hi. I recall having a DYK in the past but I don't remember the process. My DYK for Recaredo Santos Tornero has already been verified. How much does it takes to be taken to the queue? Thanks in advance! :-) Diego Grez let's talk 15:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to focus the older noms as most people focus on the newer ones. I do so as those people have been waiting longer to see theirs on the main page. Yours was only posted and verified yesterday and there's still stuff waiting from late June. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK then. :) --Diego Grez let's talk 16:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK request

The hook in the prep area for Copano, Texas also links Copano Bay. I recently rewrote the Copano Bay article, which now qualifies for DYK because it was over a 5x expansion discounting the copyright violation and unreferenced nonsense previously on the page. Could it be possible to bold the link to Copano Bay on the hook to create a double nomination hook?--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on prose size that's not even a 3x expansion (2078 to 5466). And I'm not seeing the copyright thing you mention, but I'm not totally awake yet ;-) Maybe ask Gatoclass or Materialscientist about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a complete rewrite, so it basically went from 0 to 5466.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see it. Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

Re: Happy Me Day

Many thanks for this, Rlevse. I've been having a stressful time lately for reasons unconnected with Wikipedia, and your award really made me smile. I am awed to have been chosen. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and you're welcome. Glad it helped in other ways too. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email 7-8-10

Hello,

I just corresponded with you via email. I would like to go ahead with your suggestion. Please email me if you have any questions.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piccol13 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record that was a random rename request. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by As8q34wipo (talk • contribs) 01:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not to be a pest but i still see there are a couple lines that read "undid revision by piccol 13" is this changeable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piccol13 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piccol13 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User stats, editors and outing prevention

Hello

I have a few questions. Are there stat code I could put on my talk page that would be similar to yours? I also like your user page, and I suspect that it was not entirely written in Wikipedia's online edit page as it is so complex. Did you use an external editor? I've always had trouble finding a resource to learn Wikicode. Is there any external WYSIWYG editor for editing wiki with a GUI interface? I've read the Wiki page about external editors and it doesn't seem like there are any good alternatives to the online editor or Microsoft Word. My last question about outing. I've changed my user name a while ago after I was outed. I since changed my user name, but I've noticed that some of my edits in the talk/discussion pages still have my RL name. So I had broken rule 1, 5, and 7. Should I just make a new account? Can I transfer edits and still be a verified user or whatnot?

Thanks Hmm... (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the stats, ask User:Rjanag. For the wikicode, ask User:Jack Merridew. I did not write my own user page code. Renaming only changes contribs and user pages. It won't change edit summaries, your name in talk page text, etc. You could make a new account as long as you cease using all prior accounts, including Hmm... . I can rename you but that will move Hmm... edits to the new name. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already renamed, but my talk pages still use the old RL name. I guess I can just start a new account as I have <200 edits. I would just lose all my history of edits then. :( Hmm... (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will be setting up a new account. Is there anything I should do at this point with this account? Hmm... (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]



Hello, Rlevse. You have new messages at StephenBuxton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: DYK nomination of Roman Imperial Church

I responded on the nomination page. Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Isabella Brant (drawing)

Thanks for the DYK alert on my talk page, much appreciated. I had a look at the stats hoping that it would have shot up on 9th July. However there are no stats after 7 July. I doubt it is the actual application itself as the data for all other wiki pages seem to be affected. It is a shame as I wanted to know what the traffic was like. Is the raw data retrievable or can it be reinstated? cheers! Noelypole (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it takes a day or two for the stats to show up so keep checking. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent DYK nomination

Hi Rlevse, I draw your attention to this 11 July 2010 nomination, which I have hosted under the special occasion holding area. I believe both articles are appropriate for nomination, and I hope to have the hook published on the Main Page during 11 July, which also is the FIFA World Cup 2010 Final day. In fact, it would be excellent to place the hook in the right queue so that it comes out during the time period of the Final match which begins at UTC 20:30. I sincerely hope you find this request appropriate and relevant. Thanks! AngChenrui (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of it. Keep an eye on the noms page in case there are issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the problem now is: we can slot the DYK into either of the two queues, but both have its pros and cons. Putting it in Queue 3 would mean the DYK receiving widespread viewing before the game starts. If its in Queue 4, the DYK will be published half an hour before the game starts, and carry on being on the Main Page during the game itself and finally being removed three and a half hours after the game has ended (the game would last around 2 hours). I've also pasted this onto the DYK template discussion page; don't like split discussions. Thanks :D AngChenrui (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given how many will watch the game, let's make it 3. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll agree. AngChenrui (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, just asking if the nomination will be moved to Queue 3 in time. Queue 3 is already occupied with a set of nominations different from the one we are proposing. Will you push the entire queue back one step back? Or shift our nomination(s) directly to the Main Page from the Prep area ? Thanks! AngChenrui (talk) 02:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved a couple queues. The notice was at WT:DYK for awhile and no one commented so I guess no one watching it objected, so I just made the moves. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul the Octopus image

Hi, Rlevse. I have made a composite image from the two free images available on Commons. I added it to the article, but of course I am not sure, if other editors will like it. Yet, if it is to stay, maybe it should be changed for DYK too. Here's the image I made File:Paul the Octopus 1.jpg Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, forget it. Somebody changed the image back :( although I still believe the one I have done is much more entertaining. Sorry I bothered you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Historic Trails Award

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could you link me to the relevant policy or guideline thanks

"If you want a policy change on inactive admins or such, propose a policy change"

Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking around but as yet been unable to find this policy, if you have a link I would appreciate that, thanks. Is it a Wikipedia:Policy ? Off2riorob (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, its not policy, ok , so have you got some diffs that show it is long term practice that users with no edit history for lengthy periods like three years should be automatically resopped. Off2riorob (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Choose any of many threads in the history at BN. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you say it is a regular occasion that inactive returnee accounts after three years are automatically re-sopped, is it common then that accounts return after three years and ask for administrative powers? Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct admins who turned in their bit "not under a cloud" get it back, though the three year part is longer than we usually see. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progress?

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but I find it hard to wrap my brain around how anyone would characterize this,this, this and this as evidencing progress. More like the SOS, seriously crossing the lines drawn by the TM ArbCom decision. I rather expect that ArbCom will be entertaining yet another protracted and unpleasant proceeding on this walled garden within an obscenely short time. See you then. Cheers! Fladrif (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Optimists say the glass is half full; pessimists say the glass is half empty. Maybe the glass is just too big. Fladrif (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rlevse&oldid=372838408"