Rlevse

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

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

Awesome

Thanks! These user days you do, they are a very nice thing, and I can now say first-hand that it is great to be recognised in such a way :) rst20xx (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

socionics article

A user who edits socionics named Tcaudilllg is threatening to go to arbcom to get his sole way with the socionics article. He seems to be avoiding posting credible sources and has resorted to telling white lies, such as saying that leigitimate portions and methods in the theory are 'fringe', in order to remove information he does not want in the article and get only what he wants in the article. He has also resorted to a number of personal attacks when he does not get his way with the article. He has also been makeing insistance reverts to the article that are unnecessary and for reasons that are insufficent for wikipedias standards, such as using making 'personal attacks' against another editor as a reason to remove articles in the headline. He has also been removing information that is sufficently sourced according to wikipedias standards.

Here is his userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tcaudilllg

I posted this here, because he has threatened to come here, so he can get his sole way with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.167.21 (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Let him go to arbcom. If the case gets accepted it'd sort the behavior problems out. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Email

- Ottava Rima (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

Whatever opinion you have of it, it is evidence, and it is a pretty crazy to be allowing the people in question to be deciding what is and is not good evidence without a much clearer definition of what is and is not acceptable (and no, diffs and wiki threads aren't the limits of the meaning of the English word "evidence"). As for your "Personal attack" diff ... no-one was called a communist, and being called such is not an insult anyway. Is it really so much to hope that someone like yourself will grasp a rather simple simile? Or that, failing to grasp it, they would refrain from commenting on it? Yes, the simile might have been a little demeaning to the overly-sensitive, but well within the scope of acceptable criticism. And also, you have no idea whether the arbs read the evidence. You have no way of knowing, and are just bs-ing me. Simply stating something doesn't make it true. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I know you disagree with the question, but thank you for answering it anyway. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I see singling out arbs only as a fundamental question of unequal treatment. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to apologise if you feel that I implied you were a liar or unworthy of trust - that wasn't my intention. I've elaborated further (probably not very well) on my talk. Verbal chat 14:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Now we can move forward. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you is all I can say. (and sorry about my spelling, I also didn't mean to imply you were a musical instrument) Verbal chat 15:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Verbal, I hope that you will look at it from our perspective. We were given this hot potato to handle and have been dealing with it for days. And the Committee as a whole has been doing a good job working through all the different aspects of the situation. It has been extremely time consuming (and remember we started dealing with several days ahead of the Community). And it was through our decision making that the truth came out to the whole Community. We are the good guys on the side of truth. So, when we get these type of questions, it is surprising because we think that we have shown through actions this year that we intend to keep raising the quality of the work that we do. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Flo, I understand and respect what you're saying. I hope you can see it from the perspective of the community. A series of incidents over the years has eroded trust in the ArbCom as an institution (not necessarily the current members). Last year's intake was elected to help fix that. I accept that the Law situation is time-consuming and not easy to handle, but it's surely reasonable to ask of the people handling it: "Were you involved?"

I think we need to move beyond the feeling that questions like that are personal insults of some kind. None of this is personal.One of the perennials problems we have is that everything gets personalized, everything boils down to friends or the opposite, which is why the Law situation arose in the first place. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

But we already have a process in place for us to recuse if we are involved. So, if an arbitrator had knowledge of the situation then there is the expectation that they would not act in their role as an arb in this case. There should be an assumption of good faith that arbitrators are following the rules. This questioning is unneeded and a side show in my opinion.

These poorly half though out actions can have bad consequences. Cas's resignation is one. Your statements about Cas are very troubling to me. You proposed that he resign based on a snap impression of the situation. Unfortunately, your impression was wrong and now we have lost a good arbitrator. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean about my impression being wrong. He knew about the deception, he knew who was involved, and he knew that Lara was trying to get oversight. He did nothing to stop it, and didn't tell the Committee, even though he's a member of it. That's clearly untenable, Flo. I'm asking you this very earnestly: please stop defending people because you like them, and criticizing them when you don't. We all do this. It's what it is to be human. But it has caused horrible problems on this project, a lot of unfairness, and we need to try to stop it. I include myself in that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the comments expressed about Cas resigning, my opinion is the majority, right? Cas said he made an error. But most people do not think a zero tolerance for mistakes is desirable. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to argue that's the majority position now, Flo. Remember that a lot of people initially commented before a lot of the facts were known. I do agree with you that no one should lose a position because of a simple mistake, or even several mistakes. I just disagree that this can rightly be called a mistake, because the deception involved (not by Cas but by the main players) was gross and extensive. Not to feel a duty to act on that, or at least to tell the Committee, is just odd. I can't explain it. But whatever the cause (loyalty to friends, or not realizing the seriousness of it), it's not the kind of judgment that an Arb needs. No one is saying Cas is a bad person (on the contrary, he admitted what he'd done and resigned). All we are saying is what he did was incompatible with ArbCom membership. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Your approach is extremely short sighted. Losing a competent, thoughtful, and ethical person that grew as person and arbitrator from this experience is a loss to the Community not a gain. A rush to judgment with hyperbole does not give good results. And I would appreciate it if you would stop saying my opinion of the situation is based on a friendship or liking Cas. Since he lives in a time zone that makes us active at different times, unfortunately I have not had much opportunity to work with him directly. My impression of him comes from the quality of the work that he has done as a volunteer. His professionalism as an arbitrator, and the general quality of his work on Wikipedia is very good. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I happen to think your approach is short-sighted too, but saying that doesn't help. The bottom line is that we are differently sighted. You are focusing on the work he did as an Arb. I am focusing on his failure to uphold policy for all equally. He has voted to desysop people for less than The undertow and his nominator did. Yet he withheld his knowledge of their deception from the editors who voted for them and from the Committee that had instigated the ban. I honestly can't see how anyone can defend that double standard. I can fully accept that he didn't intend to act like this, and simply didn't see how it was playing itself out, but the point about judgment remains. We want Arbs who do see these things. Having said that, I think it's unfair to discuss Cas's situation any further. I'd feel happier discussing this in general terms. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with both Slim and Flo in spirit, I think both of you also need to recall that you both have been part of actions by the wikipedia establishement (formally and informally) that have led to this general unease with wikipedia's governance structures, and should take into account that many of the community read everything both of you say as part of some kind of power struggle, not as trying to figure out what's best for the community. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

MSN

Hi! I'm a Wikipedia user and I want to talk with users of this wiki. If you can, please add me: mateuzinhow_@hotmail.com. Thank you :) Tosão (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Hi I got so tied up yesterday that I forgot to say thanks(!) for this: User_talk:Manning_Bartlett#Happy_Manning_Bartlett.27s_Day.21. Cheers Manning (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

<AOL mode on> Me too! Thanks for mine also, made my day. <AOL mode off> Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Both well deserved good buddies. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous Bot from an admin

Hi there. Would you please be so kind and look into this bot from this admin? His bot erroneously included a BLP article of a nigerian award winning actress into a porn-list-log. As wikipedia is being used nowadays by the media as a source, such an inclusion into a porn-log list not only has the power to potentially damage the reputation of the subject of the BLP, but also violates against existing US and international laws. Lastly, the erroneous bot also included the article in question into other log-lists that have nothing whatsover to do with the subject of the BLP. Anybody, admin or no admin, who is unable to properly use a bot, should not play around with bots. Your admin assistance is needed here please. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That is concerning, see User_talk:Alex_Bakharev#Concern_about_your_NewArtBot — Rlevse • Talk • 20:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Erroneous_Bot_from_an_Admin. I believe the list you are looking at is the very general list whereas the actual possible matches are at User:AlexNewArtBot/PornFeedNameSearchResult. I think a description on the tops of the pages would be the most helpful thing to do in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That would still leave the question of whether this bot task is approved and the BLP concern. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the headsup. As I said, I was leaning towards the same call. Almost thinking raising it at BN just caused unneeded attention to be focused on a not-particularly-marginal RFA. -- Pakaran 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea, with just a few !votes different it would have been close but this really was not close as it turned out, it was "close to being close". — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration question

I'm not familiar with arbitration at all. If there is a discussion going, and it is still kinda on the fence, does the committee make the final decision kind of thing? CTJF83 chat 22:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's rather vaque. What type of discussion? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is that what arbitration does, make the final decision? CTJF83 chat 17:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:DR. That looks like content issue and is nowhere near arbcom level yet. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikinger and sleepers

I have enough this whole comedy as it is. Banned user Wikinger (talk · contribs · block log) (aka, CBMIBM) has now allegedly threatened to use sleeper accounts, especially as User:TAIntedCHInese is now blocked as a sockpuppet. User:Mengele and User:Piast are the two sleeper accounts in question. Please block them both indefinitely and mark them with {{blockedsock|Wikinger}}. Once blocked, remove the suspected tags on the talk pages and redirect any empty talk pages to the user page. Thank you. -- 92.0.218.179 (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Mengele should be blocked for his unacceptable username at least, see Josef Mengele. --//Microcell// 17:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Or a fan of agricultural machines: de:Mengele_Agrartechnik :-) --Egel _Reaction? 20:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Timmeh's RfA

Hi, I have noticed that at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies_(Chronological) you have listed Timmeh's RfA as being closed as 'unsuccessful'. In the descriptions above this term seems to suggest he acquired fewer support votes than oppose votes, something which did not happen. Is the close of his RfA therefore 'no consensus' (or something else) or are the descriptions above incorrect? Thanks for your time. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Fewer supports than oppposes is fail, not unsuccessful. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks :) I've changed the criteria on the top of the above page, then. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at the other pages I think it would be on, they all seem fine. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.rf's talk page

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

I understand you may be busy, but I just wanted to say that I would really appreciate if you didn't ignore this message this time. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 01:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Mandatory reporting"?

On WIkipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions, I think you might have intended to use different section titles for the last two of the three bearing this title? John Carter (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea, i just fixed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Hawk

What needs to be done with the article? I didn't really follow the FAC, but I'd like to see it featured eventually. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Rhurfisch said he'd work on it but never did and then he and that other guy both objected because it have, in their mind, enough refs from the Jung book, ie, opposing because it didn't use their favorite book enough. I thought that was sort of a weak reason. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll take a look later. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

• New talk pages: LiquidThreads in Beta
• Sockpuppet scandal: The Law affair
• News and notes: Article Incubator, Wikipedians take Manhattan, new features in testing, and much more
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia used by UN, strange AFDs, iPhone reality
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: New developments at the Military history WikiProject
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Retribution, punishment, and punitive action

Please familiarize yourself with this essay: Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors are not punishment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with it. He socked six months of his 9-month block. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with using Wikispeak phrasing. He didn't sock. There was no simultaneous use of multiple accounts. He returned and evaded his block making loads of constructive edits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It was socking, and block evasion. Let's use an extreme real world example, if you commit murder and then do lots of good community service, does that make the the murder okay? And you're very involved in this, you're hardly neutral since he's the one that unblocked you. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? Wow. Unbelievable. My wiki-fate rests in the hands of someone who thinks block evasion that caused no damage to the encyclopedia is comparable, even in the extreme, to murder. Maybe CoM isn't neutral, but at least he's grounded in reality. Lara 03:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Rlevse was saying they are comparable, or that socking is like murder. He was drawing an analogy. However I don't think the analogy is very useful in this case, as it's so over-exaggerated. I hope Rlevse will take another look at this and go with a very strong admonishment or "yellow card" in all three cases. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As he said, it was an extreme example - to show that good behaviour doesn't always completely mitigate bad behaviour, it is sometimes a question of degrees, and sometimes absolute. Verbal chat 04:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It was not a well-considered analogy. Lara 05:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Verbal, I intentional used an extreme example. My point is merely that good behavior does not always mitigate bad. Here, Lara violated the community and essentially sees nothing wrong with it, and that IS a serious problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"sees nothing wrong with it" is inaccurate, but I surely don't see it as warranting as much drama as it has, nor do I think this case compares to others. I thought there was general consistency in cases, but then I don't follow many, so I suppose that was more of an assumption. Regardless, the murder analogy was unnecessarily extreme and shows a lack of consideration for the parties. This isn't uncommon on Wikipedia. It happens in AFDs frequently for subjects who have committed some small-scale non-violent crime. While debating their notability, editors will compare them to a prolific serial killer, for example. It's just not an apt comparison and it skirts up on BLP. This case isn't a BLP issue, of course, but I still find your analogy to be inconsiderate. It's not a big deal so I'll drop it here. I just wanted to express my opinion on it. Lara 12:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

advice

Hey, could you take a quick look at this edit and this one, and the contribution history of user:Oyushminald or whateve his username is (it's a very short history of contribs)? It smells like a sockpuppet but I do not know that I have enough evidence for a checkuser. I'd appreciate your advice before I make (0r not make0 a request. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there's enough for a CU. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind raising it with other checkusers and perhaps checking? Otherwise I will try it tomorroe, it is latte for me. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked another CU to look at it. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Appears that User:Jpgordon has addressed this. ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Email

- Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Responded. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

application

Hi, Rlevse. You advised me like this and Shell Kinney advised me like this in May. So I edited too difficult and too nationalitc articles for fulfill your demands as far as I could. And I obeyed Future Perfect at sunrise's order from 13:33, 21 January 2009. I handled many dispute without troubles. Please release the topic ban.--Bukubku (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll do some nosing around. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit count since June is rather low for you, so if you don't edit, it's easy to avoid controversy. Still investigating. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...looks like hauntingly familiar Bukubku tactics on World War II and Manchukuo:

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse, If you have any questions about my editions, please point out in concrete. I didn't edit worse. And you said to me few edits since Feb and even fewer outside his "home turf" of Japanese articles[7], so I had to write more and more outside articles which were difficulty and controversial.--Bukubku (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I talked more and more who had other point. See my edition.--Bukubku (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on my own talk page. I'm afraid I'm not much inclined to support an unban either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

• From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
• Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
• Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
• News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
• Dispatches: Sounds
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser request, non-sockpuppetry-related

At WP:UAA, a bot reported the username I will die, which was created earlier today. An admin left the comment, per WP:SUICIDE, that the username should be monitored in case the user edits. I believe this person should be checked right away. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a legit use of CU so I ran the check. There is very little to go on. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll let you know if anything else comes up. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for recognition

I was very pleasantly surprised by your naming a day for me. Was there any special reason for this? Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just your long term outstanding work. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Role_account_and_username_issue. Cirt (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

RFC notice

I cited your comments, at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#NERIC-Security. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded

File:Allaroundamazingbarnstar3.png		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your arbitration work and just your overall dedication to improving all aspects of Wikipedia. I get a lot of inspiration from prolific editors such as yourself. :) œ™ 19:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Gee, wow, many thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 19:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Worried

Rlevse, do you have any information about ArielGold? Is she OK? NancyHeise ^talk 01:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ck email. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I came across your project "Wikipedian of the Day" and thought it was a thoughtful project, and a good way to show thanks to those who edit Wikipedia. On the side note, Dog the Teddy Bear is awesome. And your Userpage is beautiful. Rttam^TN_C 20:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

thank you, and dog the teddy bear thanks you! — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Roadcreature

Hi Rlevse, in re this renaming kerfuffle, the problem I see is that this is (presumably) the editor's real name. I can count on at least two sets of fingers now the cases of "why did you sign up using your real name then?" but nevertheless people do make errors when they first register accounts. We need to be sensitive to their retrospective concerns. We also need to leave the appropriate trail of bread crumbs, just not huge flashing banners. Hopefully the end solution will be subtle.

As far as the ArbCom notice on restricted user renames, good one on me, I must have been getting a suntan at the time. I'll support the admins who did the renaming, I think they were acting in good faith and if I was them I would be thinking "screw ArbCom, this is an actual person with a real name, I'm going to do what's right" or possibly not even aware of the ruling. In summary, I think the privacy of the editor's name should take precedence over the named editor's actions on-wiki. As I noted earlier of course, the account rename won't really change anything, the search engines will surmount all... Franamax (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: me day

Thanks! I've asked a question on my talk, in case you didn't see it. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

• News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
• In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:ChinaUpdater's repeated BLP violations

• Can you provide more diffs of the BLP violations and what in those diffs is a vio>? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• I can. Here [8].

I can and will provide a number of links whereby it will be clear that two editors (one with two names?) are trying

• 1. to mislead Wikipedia readers into thinking Allied Artists Records, aka, Allied Artists International is notable because it is Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, which it is not, and

• 2. have have deleted any and all reliably sourced information about Kimball Dean Richards, and redirect anyone looking for the famous movie company over to the company of which Richards is CEO, creaing the impression that his company is "successor in interest" to the classic film company, which will have the effect of driving up the price of stock in convicted felon Richards' company by misleading readers of Wikipedia, in exaclty the same manner as Richards did in his many years of fraud for which there are multiple convictions.ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:ChinaUpdater.27s_repeated_BLP_violations

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allied_Artists_International

links for my reference. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Death Threats, and Email requests

Re "Can you turn on your email, even if temporarily, so you can email me? It's very important. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)"',

• I have received death threats, recorded by the LAPD, and in posession of the SFPD.
• I reported them to Agent McClatchy at the United States Secrete Service, Division of Bank and Wire Fraud, as well as to Detective Level II Barragan in the same office, both of whom I met with in person.
• Because of KDR's past "solicitation to commit murder", and other crimes to further his Allied Artist misrepresenations, I do not feel comfortable with giving my email, as I know from personal experience that there are problems with at least two admins related to something else entirely. ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ChinaUpdater (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)