Jump to content

User talk:Swarm/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Hive Award

 Slakr's Hive Award

For your constant work in several administrative areas and in general helping the colony we have here, I hereby award you this nice, comfy hive... box... thing. For what it's worth, I gave it a good wash to make sure there currently aren't any nasty parasites or anything in it. :P

Keep up the great work. =) Cheers, --slakr\ talk / 08:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Slakr! You do me a great honor. Thanks for everything you do around here as well! Swarm ♠ 23:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

DS alerts and WP:DSLOG

Regarding this edit: sanction alerts don't go into the dslog. Instead all ds alerts are tagged by an edit filter so they can easily be searched for in talk page history. You should probably remove the notification from the dslog. Thanks. Brustopher (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Ratko Dujkovic

He did play fully pro league in Bosnia and Herzegovina and In Croatia. He competed in UEFA Champions league and Europa League Qualification I want to no why he is not eligible for Wikipedia

Hockeysoccertennis (talk)

The subject was determined to be non-notable by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ratko Dujković and it was deleted accordingly. The re-created article contained the exact same information, so there was no indication that that consensus should no longer apply. You're free to request a deletion review at WP:DRV. Swarm ♠ 07:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry and edit warring

Hi there, Swarm. Happenstance we meet again so soon. I strongly suspect user Rob.HUN to be engaged in sockpuppetry in the European migrant crisis article, identical to IPs 37.76.11.111 and 37.76.42.195. Their edit summaries are similar, all three are opposed to the term "European refugee crisis" in the opening statement (and all removed the term and the first two removed the supporting citation without even an explanation for removing a citation), all do not like the use of the New York Times as citations, the autoconfirmed identity and the latter IP have specifically removed New York Times refs and substituted them with different ones as well as removing a statement identifying the Times as the analyst of UN and World Bank data. I have used the Times as citations in instances that I have found them to be pertinent, and I have a found a Russian-diaspora-based citation to support the European refugee crisis label (which was not my original contribution, by the way). Is it justifiable for me to use a rollback in this instance? I obviously wouldn't be adjudicating the suspected sockpuppet issue. Best, Castncoot (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Castncoot didn't try to explain his "refugee crisis" edit on the talk page after multiple undo's. Only later came up with a source that substantiates nothing. The IP 37.76.11.111 was me (I did not care to log in for a mere undo) but not 37.76.42.195. It's not only me in Hungary interested in AND AFFECTED DIRECTLY by this crisis who think in the same way about it. Furthermore i would like to COMPLAIN about the CLEAR BIAS of Castncoot toward The New York Times, bordering on BRAND BUILDING: Castncoot not only cites The NYT almost EXCLUSIVELY, but insists on MENTIONING IT BY NAME in the lead section of the article. Rob.HUN (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
A responsible editor should strive to cite sources that are reasonbly assumed to have first hand knowledge and unbiased reportage of a situation and strive to cite not only one source. Castncoot seems more like having an agenda of pushing The NYT and the idea of "refugee crisis" into forefront. Rob.HUN (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Castncoot: No, rollback is strictly for acts of clear vandalism. It should not be used against merely disruptive edits, edits that might be vandalism, and it should never be used to edit war. Thanks for consulting me before you chanced it. I've temporarily blocked Rob for the edit warring and the blatant personal attacks. The suspicion of sockpuppetry is something you should take to WP:SPI as soon as possible. Regards, Swarm ♠ 00:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Swarm, will do. Best, Castncoot (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Rob.HUN is continuing to evade the block by editing as an IP on the European migrant crisis article. I added the IPs on the Sockpuppet investigation page regarding Rob.HUN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rob.HUN#05_September_2015). Can those IPs be blocked, or can the article be protected? Thanks, Nykterinos (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, Swarm - this likely block evader and sockpuppet is disrupting the European migrant crisis article voraciously, using IPs to do his dirty work. Can the block please be extended beyond the three days, such that the sock examiner has an opportunity to adjudicate his case? And perhaps also blocking the IPs in question on the sock complaint page? Also, I agree with Nykterinos (talk) that this article would be better off if protected for registered users (at least for now, until the sock-and-block issue is sorted out). Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I've blocked the ip. Swarm ♠ 07:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Swarm. You have new messages at Let's keep it neutral's talk page.
Message added 14:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Adoption

Hey! My username is Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors and I am new-ish to Wikipedia. I created my account long long ago and recently started editing again. I found you through a discussion I saw you participated in on Denali and I really respected your calm-headed approach and neutrality on that issue. In reading your user page I noticed you adopt newer user and was wondering if you could serve as a resource in this way to me. I sometimes have questions on how to proceed and think having this sort of relationship would be hugely helpful here. Let me know if you're interested in adopting me! I look forward to hearing from you! Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 13:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
A responsible admin that is willing to accept RFPERMs and believes in copyright paranoia. What's there not to agree with or like about. Thanks for all your contributions on Wikipedia. Hope to see you around. JustBerry (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandal

Are you online? If so can you PLEASE take care of Special:Contributions/207.62.246.202? --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the pending changes reviewer bit! I'll put it to good use :) --Ashenai (talk) 00:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

HUNTERRR - plot

Hi

I notice my character driven plot summary is being constantly replaced by something that gives away the entire story. Any reason why?

a — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarkayne (talk • contribs) 22:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You are the one trying to replace the plot summary. Your edits are simply being reverted back to the old version. Per WP:SPOILER, it is not acceptable to delete content because it "gives away the entire story". Spoilers exist in Wikipedia articles and that's all there is to it. The purpose of a plot section is to summarize the story so that the reader can better understand the subject of the article. Replacing the plot section with list of characters and descriptions in order to avoid "giving away the story" is unencyclopedic and defeats the purpose of having such a section. Swarm ♠ 00:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

However my character driven summary is the original plot.summary that was replaced by the user whose words u r putting back. Trace back the history and u will seen my summary was there since the time of the release of the.movies.until recently it was completely replaced...so am I not the person whose work is being replaced...just curious how something that applies to me wouldn't to the other user...

Thanks for the attention

A — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarkayne (talk • contribs) 01:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but that literally doesn't make a difference though because you don't own the article and you're dodging the actual point. Your character summary is not an encyclopedic plot summary because it does not serve the purpose of a plot summary laid out in MOS:PLOT. It should have been replaced and your reasons for restoring the "character driven summary" are not valid. Swarm ♠ 01:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sigh I feel i am up against an unbearable rules enforcement body and probably will be my last interaction with Wikipedia. Its a creative piece of work and if the difference between a character driven piece of writing is not understand, certainly is a pity. I am dodging nothing by the way. This is creative freedom that is being stifled. Goodbye and be well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarkayne (talk • contribs) 01:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Updated a 3RR report after continued reverts

Please see my edit here and see if it looks all right to you. There were additional reverts on 14 September after your original closure of 12 September, so I proceeded with a block. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: fine by me. Thanks. Swarm ♠ 16:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marziah Karch (2nd nomination)

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marziah Karch (2nd nomination) as userfy. You moved the page to the User:Lizardbones. Consider moving it to a sub-page, if for no other reason than to give it a dedicated talk page for collaborators. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and there is this leftover. Consider moving it to User talk:Lizardbones/whateversubpagenameyouusedabove. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I see you've handled it now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
@Davidwr: yep, thanks for stopping by. I figured I'd let the user do with it what they wanted but you're right. I've moved it back to its original subpage. Swarm ♠ 04:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks! RA0808 talkcontribs 21:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ignore the above user

Swarm, ignore this guy. He just wants to ruin people's editing career for his own benefit. That pointless complaint he made, when he fail to see that the conversation I had with Cyphoidbomb and Epic Genius was already over after I had specifically said that I will wait for consensus to be reached numerous times. Right now, I mostly be editing the New York City Subway articles for the time being. The guy needs to go find somebody else to get blocked. Tired of him for real. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC) JoesphBarbaro (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, since I'm mentioned here... @JoesphBarbaro: you should probably just step away from interacting with Amaury. @Swarm: the relevant discussion was this one. Epic Genius (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: JoesphBarbaro

Hello. You previously blocked this user for edit warring per my report. After their block expired, they posted on various talk pages regarding an alleged explanation for their behavior, including mine, and to meet them on another user's page "later or tomorrow." With the message on my talk page, I've tried to explain it to them, remaining calm and to the point, but they refuse to listen and are being very uncivil. Looking at comments on their colleague's (I think) talk page here, it's also a concern of Cyphoidbomb's. At this point, I don't feel like explaining myself over and over. It doesn't seem they want to listen to anyone unless they're in agreement with them.

If this could be looked into, that would be great. Thanks. Amaury (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Amaury: comments on their college's (I think) talk page You meant "colleague", right? Yes, we are both members of WP:NYCS. Epic Genius (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, just a typo. Fixed. Amaury (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
@Amaury: done. Swarm ♠ 02:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Request for copy of "New Campus Anti-Rape Movement" article

Could you please copy that deleted article into my userspace. I think there is something there that could make a good article after a top to bottom rewrite. I didn't have the mental energy to attempt it during the AfD period, and was really hoping someone with knowledge of modern feminist stuff would take it up. But I'm willing to give it a try. If I can get something good out of it, I will run it through the AfC process (as it has been deleted after an AfD) rather than just posting a new article. Carl Henderson (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Carl Henderson:  Done. User:Carl Henderson/NCARM. Thanks for your help! Swarm ♠ 14:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Carl Henderson (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Help

Илья Драконов was blocked because some person uses the same IP adress, please help!!! Ilya0103 (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting Garage rock article!

Thank you so much for protecting the garage rock article from the unsigned edit-warrior. While we're on the topic of that article, I've been working on an big expansion to it, so I hope you like what you see there, although I have more things to do. It has really come a long way, and I believe that eventually it will be one of the grandest articles on a musical genre here a Wikipedia. So enjoy! Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: I noticed on your bio that you are from Florida and are a self-described hipster. I mentioned a handful of 60s bands from Florida in the Garage rock article and I want to add more. Not much is often said about it, but South Florida had one of the largest garage scenes in the United States in the 60s. For instance I just did and article on the Painted Faces from Ft. Myers. They had a great song called "Anxious Color" done in 1967 [[1]]. I did an article way back on Evil (which I want to go back and expand). They did a bunch of great garage/punk songs (yes punk!) in 1966 such as: "I'm Movin' On" [[2]]and "From a Curbstone." [[3]]. Enjoy! Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@Garagepunk66: Awesome! Thanks a lot for the suggestions! I'll have to look into this a lot more! Your development of the garage rock article pretty impressive and I commend you on the great job. Keep it up! Seriously! Swarm ♠ 06:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
P.S. Unfortunately Ft. Myers is no longer a burgeoning hub of cutting-edge music. :/ Swarm ♠ 06:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd imagine Ft. Myers is now mostly retirees. ...But then again, maybe some of those retirees were in bands way-back-when and will return to playing music. Thanks for the compliments on the article. I have a section on psychedelic garage that I'm going to add soon--in my sandbox #2 (however, it is definitely not ready yet). I appreciate your interest in 60s garage bands! Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello Swarm,

It's nice to see that you are avail of adopting newbies like me. Please adopt me and help me if you have spare time. Thank you so much. --Rocksteady05 17:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocksteady05 (talk • contribs)

Revisiting New York article status

Hi there, Swarm. Can semi-protecting the New York article please be revisited? It's seen constant disruption since its status was changed, which established editors would probably like to spend less time and energy fixing in favor of more constructive edits. I realize the last such negative disruption was from a redlinked editor, but it's been mostly IPs. IMHO, the higher profile states and cities should be left semi-protected because they are more prone to disruption - for one thing, that itself sets a certain tone and expectation in editing. Regards, Castncoot (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you're overstating the perceived "problem" for exactly the same reasons I'd outlined in my original response to you—in fact I have not seen any indication whatsoever that the alternative form of protection has negatively affected the article in any way, nor that constructive editors are being distracted by "fixing disruption" that has never appear in the article. I concur in that the article has clearly not benefited from pending changes either, so I'm willing to accede to your request, though I don't think it necessary, nor do I agree with semi-protecting high profile articles by default at all. Swarm ♠ 04:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Points well taken, thank you. Best, Castncoot (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of image

The image on this page Jeremy Corbyn is notably bad. It features a poorly cropped image with him looking in the opposite direction and I truly believe that for a new reader like myself it puts the article and Wikipedia in a bad light. Another issue with it is that people seem to be using consensus to delay the process in getting to a better image. The issue with this isn't simple a IDONOTLIKEIT but rather an issue for the standards of Wikipedia. I would suggest you review this and the images edit history - then perhaps remove the image completely until the discussion on which image is better can be concluded.  ' Olowe2011 Talk 10:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Postmortem

Swarm, I appreciated your comments at my recent RfA and am going to be asking a small number of folks who !voted but whom I don't "know" very well (hence I think you can be pretty neutral and objective) for some analysis and discussion. If you'd feel comfortable being one of those people, can you either post here or email me? (Your call, this can be on or off-wiki). Montanabw(talk) 19:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: NeXT Computer

Hi Swarm,

I'm Eike,

I'd like to not revert my edits.

I'm actively working on adding first hand information on a lot of Nextstep topics. see my other edits on the topic (edx) I just can't log in, because my laptop (with the wikipedia password) is still updating to 10.11

It's just a bit frustrating if you delete my edits before they are even done. This does not feel good for me.

I'm not a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4B4F:FC00:7177:510D:C3CF:5D11 (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Swarm. This is just a personal note expressing my great respect for you and my appreciation and thanks for your eloquence, fairness and defence of the common editor. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Hey, that was supposed to be my line. I'm supposed to be the guy with the thanks here. :) But I appreciate your kindness. It is because of editors and admins like you that I still find it worthwhile to be around. Keep up the great work you do and thank you again. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer rights

Thank you, Godai (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

IP: 109.154.158.70

Hello Swarm, Could I just bring to your attention that the above user is again making alterations without any reasons and edit warring when their "edits" are reverted. I have left a note on the IP's Talk page, as have others, but there has been no response. Some editors have suggested there are other elements here. As you have been involved before, can I leave this with you please. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Rage quitting

@HighInBC: unfortunately the discussion has been collapsed so I couldn't respond, but I will do so here. Giving an abusive user a chance to return under the strict condition that they stop being abusive is not that unreasonable and most certainly doesn't represent "a project that fails to prevent abusive people from interacting with editors". It represents one administrator extending a lot of good faith to a user he thinks can return to productive editing. Again, this is a big project and here's a news flash, it's already full of hostility, in spite of its compulsory civility principles. The momentary, restricted return of a single person, no matter how hostile, does not turn the entire community atmosphere into a "hostile work environment", and if one truly believes that it does than one has entirely lost perspective. That editor was on thin ice and couldn't have, and wasn't, allowed to get away with any sort of hostility. In the overall scope of this project's history, content and goals, this is absolutely a trivial, stupid distraction from the important work we do here, and to leave over it is to fail the project and the community. Swarm ♠ 15:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Given this users history of abuse I would say that is exactly what it was. There was nothing in their old or recent behaviour to indicate change, and no change was forthcoming. The very first edit was to go back to blaming everyone else for their situation, something that has escalated to extreme levels in the past.
Individuals being hostile will always be an issue, but when the project becomes too accepting of this that is when a culture of hostility forms. My stance is that given the amount of abuse this person has already made towards our volunteers that letting them back without consulting the community first was insulting, even if it was not intended that way.
I would find your point far more valid if this user had not already been given several chances, if they had not engaged in extortion, abuse, sock puppetry and harassment. This goes back years.
It is not my goal to further criticize those involved in this. I am just trying to explain that I felt very much like leaving the project too. Perhaps Floq has nuanced reasons that differ from mine, however I felt like finding a project that had more reasonable standards of behaviour. At least a project that does not allow people to return who have threatened to cause as much harm to the project as possible and has engaged in serious on and off-wiki harassment. HighInBC 15:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
It is simply astounding to me that one administrator would be driven to leave by this, much less multiple administrators. I attributed this to a loss of control and perspective, and I apologize if that was simply unfair of me. I gather now that the disruption was far more extreme and protracted than I have been giving it credit for. I will definitely concede the fact that I cannot possibly relate to the mindfuck this unblock caused. That being said, I still think the severity of the situation was blown highly out of proportion in the discussion and did not accomplish much. What started as a block review turned into a scathing, highly excessive circle jerk on how terrible the unblock was. After the first couple of hours of people bashing on the unblock, the point had been made and the CBAN section was really the only helpful part of that discussion in terms of reaching an actual solution. Swarm ♠ 04:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thanks for helping me out, and assigning me account creator status for my edit-a-thon

Jjfloyd (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

hi Swarm thank you very much for you're assistance. You Have been very helpful. Rb4827 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rb4827 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  • @Rb4827: No problem! I see you've added your image and I'm glad I was able to help! Let me know if you have any more questions and please, keep editing! And here's a tip, when you write a message on a talk page, sign your name by typing ~~~~. It will automatically be replaced with your own signature! Swarm ♠ 02:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
This is to recognize your many accomplishments here at Wikipedia, both as an editor and as an administrator. As an administrator you have carried out your decisions with a sense of fairness and integrity. I'm sure that the countless people at Wikipedia would agree with me on this and share my sense of appreciation for your outstanding work. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Garagepunk66:! That means a great deal to me, as do your commitment to the project and all the fantastic work you do here. I'm glad the new rights will motivate you to keep doing a great job! I appreciate the kind words and I try to do a good job on my end, but I just work behind the scenes and try to help out where I can. It's the editors like you who make this project great. Thanks for contributing so much content and please do keep it up! Swarm ♠ 02:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
And, it is that very humility you've expressed above, which is the reason why you have been so judicious and in carrying out your role as an administrator--and quietly behind the scenes, you have selflessly supported the efforts of others. But, once in a while, it is only right for us to express our gratitude for what you do here at Wiki, too. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Jimmy fagbile

Thanks for adjusting the protection. This was the first creation protection I had done and I wasn't sure how long a period it should be. Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  • No worries Liz. I usually go 1-3 months on the low end and maybe a year on the higher end, depending on the user's dedication towards disrupting the project and the inappropriateness of the article itself. Creation-warring is a valid reason to salt but CSD A7 does not mean that a subject shouldn't be included, just that particular version, so longer term protection probably isn't the best option by default. :) See you around! Swarm ♠ 03:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

User:I am not sure how

Hi Swarm! Thank you for you help with this user. Unfortunately, I don't think it will do any good as I believe he is also using all of these IPs (and some other ones but, I just can't keep up). My reasoning for thinking so can be seen here.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hm, well he can't cause any more image disruption without an account, and skimming those IPs' contributions, it's hard for me to tell which edits are disruptive and why, even if it is one person behind all those IPs. If you can explain to me why they should be prohibited from editing, I'm willing to help make and maintain a list of affected pages and ensure that they're semi-protected. Swarm ♠ 03:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I have been filing a lot of pages for semi-protection and most are being protected for longer and longer periods each time. If I notice him back with a with tons of edits again, I will let you know. Perhaps with all the reverting myself and others have had to do, he'll go away. Time'll tell, though. Thanks again!Cebr1979 (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll be here. :) Swarm ♠ 03:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Need help with little matter

Hello Swarm, this GP66. Well I did a crazy little thing, which I know I'm not supposed to do, but I think I had a good reason: when I created the article for the Shags, yesterday, rather than submit it myself, I decided to go the push the blue review button and have it reviewed--I know that I probably shouldn't need to do that at this stage, but I wanted to see if any I could learn some small tips from other editors--you're never too experienced to learn a few things. However, when the article finally got created, I noticed that it did not give me proper credit as the creator of the article. When the draft was finally moved (and submitted), the title given was The Shags (West Haven)--I would have preferred The Shags (Connecticut band). But, rather than move and change the title myself, I decided to create a new article called The Shags (Connecticut band)--that way I could get credit for creating the article on my Wikimedia Tool Labs counter--I worked hard on it and I deserve it. So, please do not be mad, but I am imagining that you will delete on of the articles, which is fine. Would it be possible to do the following (?):

I do apologize for any inconvenience or breach of Wiki protocol. I assure you that I will not have reason to do this again. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Garagepunk66: Hey there, I totally understand wanting to be credited as the article's creator and it's seriously no problem at all. I've gone ahead and merged the page history into the version you created so it will be retained, but you will still be credited as the article's creator, and I've deleted the West Haven version like you asked. I'm glad you thought to ask me for assistance! I'm more than happy to help. Swarm ♠ 08:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much as always! Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way, thank you for extending my user rights to include autoreviewer and reviewer. I appreciate that you think highly of my work, and to show my appreciation, I promise to do good quality work here at Wiki. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I've reviewed a couple of edits. I'll admit that the first one I may have done wrong: I was so eager to do the review, that I just rushed into it without really reading the print and accidently reviewed the article not the revision (sorry), but the second time (after actually reading the print), I think I did it just right. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@Garagepunk66: Cool! No worries if you mess up, you can always simply self-revert if you make a mistake. Glad you're checking it out though! Remember, when reviewing an edit, you're not taking responsibility for it. You're just making sure that it's not vandalism, not spam, and not a serious policy violation of some sort. You do not have to make sure it's perfectly sourced, or perfectly accurate. Just that it's not disruptive, or outright prohibited. :) Swarm ♠ 06:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll remember that. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colors Kannada

Swarm, I came to this mess due to a sock farm. The problem with this AfD is that it was for a channel and the umbrella group, the Channel is a franchise run by ETV Network but other than five regional channels, the rest are part of Viacom 18. I'm uninvolved in this mess and can fix it, but as you closed the AfD and protected the articles I'd like your OK before I do that. See User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#Colors_TV for some additional info. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  • @SpacemanSpiff: I can't seem to figure out what the problem is, but if there's a mess that needs fixing, by all means, do whatever you need to do! I have no stake or interest in this content and I will merely point out that consensus is against keeping the two articles nominated in the AfD. Beyond that, feel free to do whatever is needed. Swarm ♠ 05:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Colors is a brandname owned by Viacom 18 and was licensed to a few channels that belonged to ETV Network. Colors Kannada was one of the few channels owned by ETV while Colors TV is directly owned by Viacom 18. It seems that this area has been a big target of Jaswanthvijay and other socks and they have been moving the articles willy-nilly via moves and copypastes so it was near impossible to figure out what's what and what had happened was some of the titles on wiki that should have been with the ETV network went to the Viacom side and vice versa. Unfortunately I was responding to a post at AN and came through across this mess, time that I will not get back. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
@SpacemanSpiff: Oh, jeez. What a cluster. Well thank you very much for seeing to this then. You should definitely do whatever you need to do, period. If it involves overriding the AfD in any way, I have no objection. Feel free to amend the closing statement if needed. Thanks again. Swarm ♠ 06:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I've retargeted one of the redirects (Colors TV) from ETV to Viacom 18 and I think that should be sufficient for now. If at some point in the future someone wants to create an article for that TV channel we can then evaluate it. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 08:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

JoesphBarbaro block evasion

According to this edit, 68.194.61.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is JoesphBarbaro (talk · contribs) engaging in block evasion after you indefinitely blocked him. I noticed this after he resumed an edit war at The Karate Kid (2010 film). If you'd rather not deal with this, I can take it to SPI, but it seems like an open-and-shut case. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Swarm, I want to thank you dearly for giving me back my editing rights after so many years of being blocked every time I evaded the ban. I promise you now that that will be a thing of the past. I do however have to ask you a couple of important questions about the topic ban. First of all, as the system has changed so much over the years, and as I can still read Balkans pages, am I allowed to send public thanks to a user who I think has done a good job in that area? Am I allowed to edit pages which are not about the Balkans but the Balkan affairs get mentioned? If so, how close can I get to those subjects without sailing too close to the wind? I ask these things before making any edit I am unsure of. One more thing, as I "am" Sinbad Barron, I take it I can use it as a signature keeping my account at LKIN, it is cuases problems, I will stop it and go back to LKIN. Thankyou Swarm. Let's keep it neutral (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Good questions!
  • You are not prohibited from using the "thank" function in any way. You may thank users for any edits they make, even in the area in which you are topic banned.
  • If a page is not about the Balkans but mentions the Balkans, it is most likely still related to the Balkans, and you are prohibited from editing any page relating to the Balkans. It's a gray area, but the ban is "broadly construed" so it will apply to most "gray area" situations. Theoretically, if a page cannot possibly be considered related to the Balkans, but still mentions Balkans affairs, you may edit the page as long as your edits have absolutely nothing to do with the Balkans in any way.
  • Again, the ban is "broadly construed" which means it's not supposed to let you get close to those subjects. When in doubt, don't risk it. It's a big project and it shouldn't be hard to abide by the ban. Remember, the more you stay out of trouble, the easier it will be for the ban to be lifted. It's just so you can show us that you can contribute positively to the project without causing any sort of disruption. If you abide by the ban for several months, I will gladly endorse a request to have it lifted.
  • If you're unsure whether an edit will violate the ban, feel free to ask me for my opinion.
  • You're free to sign as Sinbad Barron.
Let me know if there's anything else I can help you out with. Regards, Swarm ♠ 18:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resources Development Administration (RDA)

There were a great number of suitable sources shared by Erik... who had told me on my talk page that he wished to work on it and improve it when and as he had time. More, many of the editors at the AFD suggested userfication and even you stated you'd do it. So it's done. Per his request, I went ahead and restored it and then moved it with history intact to him at User:Erik/workspace/Resources Development Administration. His points toward the many (unused) available sourcing were not refuted and, as he has the experience and knowledge and the wish to do so, I believe when this comes back, the returned article will be significantly different and of a far far better quality than what was first brought to AFD and everyone will be happy. There will be no need for a DRV or a WP:G4 speedy. Thank you fpor handling a difficult close. checkY Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  • @MichaelQSchmidt: Thanks for taking care of that! I agree entirely with everything you said. There was clear consensus against retaining the article at this time but the general tone was that it could be made suitable for inclusion and resubmitted. Actually, now that you mention G4, I should probably make a note that there's no prejudice against recreation. Thanks again and take care! Swarm ♠ 07:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and clarified the consensus a bit. Swarm ♠ 07:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
@MichaelQSchmidt: Hey, wait, I just realized you're famous! Seriously though, I'm a huge Tim and Eric fan and of course that means I'm a huge fan of all the work you've done with them. So I'm actually really excited that I ran into you! We haven't crossed paths often, if at all, so I've never been able to draw the connection until now, but I could not find it more satisfying that you've been an admin here all this time and that I supported your RfA years ago, without even realizing who you were. I'm not really sure what to say without sounding too ridiculous, but I just wanted to share the fact that I've been a fan of your work since 2004, I have a great deal of respect for the breadth of your accomplishments, and I could not be happier that you had occasion to stop by! Swarm ♠ 07:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, and Happy Chrimbus. Schmidt, Michael Q. 07:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Swarm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Hermionedidallthework (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Indef semi of your user page

Adjust as you see fit, of course. --NeilN talk to me 21:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Swarm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Supdiop (T🔹C) 12:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi Swarm. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for reviewing my request. Supdiop (T🔹C) 23:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Anna Politkovskaya redux

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Yanping Nora Soong (report #2 for a different article) (Result: ). This is a rerun of a September 14 AN3 case in which you commented. At that time, you stated that BMK had a "very well-grounded BLP concern". I was thinking of extending the protection but am wondering now if that's justified. Can admins just keep on protecting indefinitely? The definition of BLP is ultimately up to editor consensus. Thanks for any opinion, or for closing the case if you are so inclined. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Language templates

Hi Swarm,

Thank you again for reviewing my template editor request. I have a couple of questions that maybe you could help me with, but thought that this was a better place to discuss them than continuing the other thread.

My first question is, since this discussion involving the 3 editors who began implementing the additional parameter does not constitute consensus, if I wanted to gain a wider consensus can you suggest where I may begin? Would this be the sort of thing that would require an RFC? Since the edit was so minor and uncontroversial I didn't even consider this and assumed that 3 editors (4 now including me) agreeing, and no users opposing the addition even a year later would suggest consensus, so I apologize if I was incorrect. Would it be a better approach to try to revive that stale thread?

My second question is, does every edit to every template require consensus? I can't find any documentation that outlines this issue. I was under the impression that any user can create or edit a template as long as the edit was constructive and uncontroversial, much like editing an article. Obviously for protected templates this is a different story since the reason templates are protected is that they appear on a large number of pages and any edits can have a significant impact on the encyclopedia. With these language templates though, many are protected but some are not. Does that mean that I cannot add the "lit." parameter to the unprotected templates without consensus on the talk page? I feel strongly that the addition of this parameter is helpful addition but do not want to do anything that would be inappropriate so I appreciate your feedback on this.

I'm inserting another question that I previously forgot to ask here. [08:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)] The template documentation was modified by these users to reflect the fact that this additional parameter is being rolled out to all the different templates and that it might therefore be available. Since there was no consensus for this, should it be removed from the documentation or at least reworded to reflect the fact that it only applies to certain templates?

Finally, I am unlikely to reapply for the template editor user right any time in the near future, and obviously never again for this same reason, but I'm wondering if you can clarify what would constitute a need to have the template. I noticed that the user who applied above me wanted to change a category for a number of templates, but it seems like that is on the same scope with what I was trying to do. Your comment to me was "pasting a PER would be no more work than directly implementing an edit, so I think your basis for a requested exemption from using protected edit requests has no leg to stand on", but my impression is that modifying a category would take about as long as requesting it be modified. I want to be clear that I'm not challenging your decision in any way, I just realize that I must not have a good understanding of the guidelines for granting the user right.

I know these questions are rather involved, so I thank you for your response in advance.

Ry's the Guy (talk|contribs) 08:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

SMH...

FYI: [4] Barbaro is trying to lure Epic into being an unwitting meatpuppet. Simply astounding. Can't control himself; trying to drag others down... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

More from late September: [5] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide an explanation?

Hi. Could you please provide an explanation for why you rev del'd or oversighted Guy Macon's edits to the CypherPunkyBrewster talk page, with reference to the policy which supports it? I would appreciate it, as I don't understand the grounds for doing so. Thanks. BMK (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I have the same question concerning the AN/I thread that Guy Macon opened about this issue, which you first moved the AN/I Archive 901, and then rev del'd or oversighted from the archive. Again, under what theory of policy did you take these actions? BMK (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I cannot discuss the details surrounding this publicly or privately, but I have replied via email with the most thorough explanation I'm able to provide. Swarm ♠ 05:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. BMK (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I haven't received the email you mentioned, and wanted to be sure you went to User:Beyond My Ken to send it. BMK (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Weird, I'm positive I went straight to your user page and clicked "Email this user", and I even specifically remember seeing the confirmation screen. You sure it didn't end up in your spam folder? If not I'll gladly rewrite it. Swarm ♠ 00:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I checked the spam folder before, but I'll do it again. If I don't find your message, I'll send you an email so you can reply to me directly without going through the WP e-mail interface. BMK (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
DI you receive the email I sent you? BMK (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Nope, absolutely nothing! Not in the spam folder either. This is weird, not sure what's going wrong. The email function seems to be working fine for me otherwise. It's xswrm@aol.com, just send me a dummy message and I'll reply. (Yes, I still use AOL...) Swarm ♠ 20:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
As you'll see shortly, so do I - old timers, eh? BMK (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Message sent. BMK (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Replied. I prefer to think of us as some sort of traditionalists, too noble to forsake our loyalty to the once-great king of the internet, never daring to disrespect its continued survival in the modern age. But perhaps I'm just afraid of change. ;) Swarm ♠ 05:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I got your response, thanks for the explanation. BMK (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


Please revert the revdels. The linking of two Wikipedia accounts due to on-wiki evidence isn't outing. We have an entire noticeboard established to do just that (WP:SPI). The illogical inference of your thinking here is that any user who uses a real name for an account is exempt from the restrictions against sockpuppetry. NE Ent 12:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not accuse you or anyone else of outing, nor did I say the account is exempt from the sock policy. All I will say is that the revisions were deleted for a valid reason and will either be fully suppressed or restored by an oversighter, and it will be up to their judgment. Beyond that I am not able to and am not going to debate privacy issues. Swarm ♠ 14:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Did you get reply from an oversighter? NE Ent 22:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors October 2015 Newsletter

September drive: Thanks to everyone who participated in last month's backlog-reduction drive. Of the 25 editors who signed up, 18 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

October blitz: The one-week October blitz, targeting requests, has just concluded. Of the nine editors who signed up, seven copyedited at least one request; check your talk page for your barnstar!

The month-long November drive, focusing on our oldest backlog articles (June, July, and August 2014) and the October requests, is just around the corner. Hope to see you there!

Thanks again for your support; together, we can improve the encyclopedia! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, KieranTribe, Miniapolis and Pax85.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Editor conduct

Hi there, Swarm. Kindly look at the behavior of ɱ (talk · vbm), at his talk page and mine. On his talk page, he has altered my message. The rest is self-explanatory. Best, Castncoot (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What I'm requesting here are collegiality and integrity coming from the other editor. I am committed to working collegially with him on the Hudson Valley topic. Thanks, Castncoot (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Cythera (yacht) page

Thank you for adopting me. I really appreciate it. I have an issue with the page i created...someone has edited my page and included an image. The message shows in red "malformed image". I don't know how to fix. My original text reads "Blue Ensign". It's on the right, at the (almost) top of the page. Would you please assist me?Belleami (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)belleami

@Belleami: I've fixed it, let me know if that's okay. --  Kethrus |talk to me (talk page stalker)
  • @Belleami: Hey! Great to hear from you! It looks like the template underwent some changes that somehow broke the way it was displayed. Looks like Kethrus fixed it already? That is still a very fantastic article and I'm still very impressed that you put it together yourself, with minimal assistance from me. You should be very proud. Hope all is well! Let me know if you ever need anything. :) Swarm ♠ 04:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 12:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Language templates

Hi Swarm,

I'm adding this updated list of questions here since my previous list got archived before you had a chance to respond.

Thank's again for reviewing my request for the template editor user right, and your thorough explanation for why it was declined. I'm not challenging your decision and don't plan to request the user right again, but I do have a few questions about template editing and the user-right request process that maybe you could help me with.

My first question is, since this discussion involving the 3 editors who began implementing the additional parameter does not constitute consensus, if I wanted to gain a wider consensus can you suggest where I may begin? Would this be the sort of thing that would require an RFC? Since the edit was so minor and uncontroversial I didn't even consider this and assumed that 3 editors (4 now including me) agreeing, and no users opposing the addition even a year later would suggest consensus, so I apologize if I was incorrect. Would it be a better approach to try to revive that stale thread?

Further, does every edit to every template require consensus? Wikipedia:Template editor states that "The addition of new parameters that add minor functionality" can be made without discussion or at most, leaving a discussion open several days without receiving any objections. Obviously for protected templates this even more important since the reason templates are protected is that they appear on a large number of pages and any edits can have a significant impact on the encyclopedia. With these language templates though, many are protected but some are not. Does that mean that I cannot add the "lit." parameter to the unprotected templates without consensus on the talk page? I feel strongly that the addition of this parameter is helpful addition, but do not want to do anything that would be inappropriate so I appreciate your feedback on this.

You mentioned that if Mdann52 were to use his template editor right to add the missing parameter to the lang-x templates that it would be "gambl[ing] with the use of his position based on the assumption that a silent consensus will support his actions", but there were three (not two) editors who supported this proposal and began rolling it out. Two of these were admins and the third is a template editor. Are you suggesting that these users went about this in an inappropriate manner? Should these changes be reverted? The template documentation was also updated to reflect that these changes are being rolled out, so maybe that needs to be dealt with too? It seems to me that the reason they did not continue is because it is a lot of work, but the parameter has already been incorporated into many of the templates. I'm not sure how something like this should be rectified so I'd appreciate any guidance.

Finally, as I mentioned above I won't be reapplying for the template-editor user right any time in the near future, and obviously never again for this same reason, but I'm wondering if you can clarify what would constitute a need to have the user right. I noticed that the user who applied for the user right above me wanted to change a category for a number of templates and you granted the request, but it seems like that is on the same scope with what I was trying to do. Your comment to me was "pasting a PER would be no more work than directly implementing an edit, so I think your basis for a requested exemption from using protected edit requests has no leg to stand on", but my impression is that modifying a category would take about as long as requesting it be modified. The guidelines state that "The editor should have requested and had successfully enacted at least five significant edits to protected templates." As I mentioned in my request, although I didn't formally submit an edit request, I followed User:Nakon's instructions and submitted the sandbox edits (20 or so) to his talk page and he was going to apply them for me. He then stated that he was unable to do them but suggested I reapply for the user right now that I had more experience and could demonstrate the changes I was proposing making with those sandbox edits. I want to be clear that I'm not challenging your decision in any way, I just realize that I must not have a good understanding of the guidelines for granting the user right and don't want to make any mistakes if I decide to apply again down the road.

Thanks again for your help,

Ry's the Guy (talk|contribs) 09:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

  • You may hold a discussion anywhere, you may file an RfC, really it doesn't matter as long as it receives a reasonable amount of input and is not too isolated. I was not attempting to prevent the implementation of the proposal nor commenting on its merits. It's not an unreasonable proposal, if you want to establish a stronger consensus you're free to attempt to do so anywhere. You may not even have to if you don't think anyone will object. The point I was trying to make was simply that the entire claim to a "need" rested on that one discussion, but that discussion does not provide much of a mandate so I don't consider it as establishing a "need".
Perfect, thanks! Ry's the Guy (talk|contribs) 14:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • No, every edit to a template does not require a predetermined amount of discussion, but the template editor page provides a rough guide which I agree with.
Got it. Ry's the Guy (talk|contribs) 14:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • My comment regarding Mdann can be taken at face value. I was not implying or suggesting anything beyond what I said. I was not trying to invalidate the previous supporters, I simply meant that there was not a strong consensus to support the proposal and no current one. All I meant by "gamble" is that there's no clear confirmation that consensus would support the changes and that using template editor privileges to implement a proposal in that context would be an assumption that consensus would back. I'm not saying he shouldn't or can't do it, I just said it's his prerogative.
Okay thanks for clearing that up. I was worried that I might be getting him (or anyone who fulfills an edit request for this issue on my behalf) in trouble. I'm still not quite clear about the consensus issue since it seems like such a minor change (as outlined by the template editor page) does not require anything but an absence of objection over a period of a few days, but that's fine. Ry's the Guy (talk|contribs) 14:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Need" is pretty straightforward actually. Template protection serves a very serious purpose and the vast majority of even the most trusted editors are not allowed to circumvent it. We allow some trusted users who have a lot of experience and who regularly work in the template namespace to circumvent template protection so that they may continue to work in the template namespace without being unnecessarily and unintentionally impeded in their work, and to responsibly assess any protected edit requests. A need to implement specific changes may factor into that, but the vast majority of users who "need" to edit protected templates do not need a blanket privilege to indefinitely circumvent any and all template protection on the site, and as such they're expected to go about making such edits in the usual way (i.e. requesting them). The permission is not meant to assist with the implementation of individual proposals if said proposals are the only "need". If one lacks an apparent need, editing to meet the minimum requirements may establish statistical qualification, but it does establish need. It is apparent that you do not actually need this permission in order to do the things you want to do regarding this proposal.
This is clearer now. Thanks. Ry's the Guy (talk|contribs) 14:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I can see quite clearly that Nakon did not endorse the proposal or offer to implement it, he in fact offered to review any protected edit requests you made. Swarm ♠ 21:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
You're right, in no way was he endorsing the proposal. He just stated that he would review any sandbox edits when they are "ready to sync", just as anyone with the template-editor right would do if I made an edit request. I just wanted to make this clear because in your review of my nomination you stated that I ignored his instructions when I in fact did exactly what he suggested I do.
Thanks again for the help! Ry's the Guy (talk|contribs) 14:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Mentoring

Hi Swarm, would you consider adopting me as a semi-experienced editor? I feel that although I have a firm grasp of the basics and a number of policies, I definitely have room for improvement. samtar {t} 22:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  • @Samtar: Absolutely! If there's anything specific you think you need to work on, let me know and I will be happy to help. Otherwise, feel free to drop by anytime you need advice/have questions! Other than that, I'll drop by from time to time to make sure everything is going alright on your end. See you around! Swarm ♠ 00:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Awesome thanks Swarm! In terms of something specific to improve on, I would one day like to become an administrator, so a further insight and things I should brush up on relating to that would be great samtar {t} 14:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Samtar: Oh, yeah, I've got a lot of advice on that, actually. In fact, I think it'll be most helpful if I take a bit of time to compile all of my suggestions in a list of essential advice for administrator hopefuls. I'll drop by your talk page once I put it together! But the two most important rules for now are definitely "be nice" and "stay out of trouble". Apply those principles as broadly as possible and it will be a great start. :) Swarm ♠ 08:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Kunalforyou

Swarm, you had granted this editor autopatrolled a few months back per a PERM request. I've yanked it now due to unanswered queries on promotional editing at WP:COIN, indicating that the contributions have to be checked. —SpacemanSpiff 18:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Over at WP:ARE it seems as if they are waiting on comment from you regarding User:Yossiea~enwiki. User:Yossiea~enwiki would also like to have a discussion with you if at all possible.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Swarm. You have new messages at WP:AE.
Message added 03:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just after your explicit okay before I modify the sanction. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

London Page

Hello

I want to change London Page in referance list. The problem is dead link.

"Roman London". Museum of London. n.d. Archived from the original on 22 June 2008.

DEAD LINK = http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/English/EventsExhibitions/Permanent/RomanLondon.htm New Link = http://www.hotrecentnews.com/en/news/page/museum-of-london/2253

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompython (talk • contribs) 09:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Snow dance

Yes, I know we need to be helpful to students, but do you really think that even for an educational assignment they should be allowed to create empty stubs which are then exempt from CSD-A3? I can't even stub-sort it because I haven't a clue whether it's supposed to be about dance, film, novel, ... . I might as well remove the {{stub}}, as it's less than that. Will do. Have also left anote on the course instructor's page. PamD 15:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

What? Nobody said they're exempt from A3. Just because something qualifies for a CSD does not mean it must be deleted. We're supposed to use common sense, just like with anything. If something's obviously part of an educational program and is clearly an article-to-be, how exactly does it benefit the project to delete the page? Why can we not just leave them their starting point? Answer: we can, and we should. I don't know if you realize this, but college students don't always complete their assignments right away. Shocking, I know. Doesn't mean it's going to be a wasted page. Not sure what the point of notifying the instructor is, and frankly I feel like your time would be better suited dealing with literally anything other than this non-issue. Swarm ♠ 16:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Interested in being adopted

I read on the Adopt-a-user page that you may be open to new 'adoptees.' Please let me know if you may be interested. A bit about me is on my user page. On the topics side, I am primarily interested in military history, especially World War II. I'm also interested in learning the inner workings of Wikipedia and how to work productively with fellow editors. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

List of military occupations

You are invited to join the discussion at List of military occupations. Hello, since I don't want to get reported to AE again, please see the page and talk page. Serialjoespycho is resorting to wikilawyering, ownership, uncivility, etc. I have put a disputed tag on the article because of Gaza, East Jerusale and the Golan HEights, we were discussing it on the talk page and he removed it, and he claimed he removed it because of Gaza, but the article is still disputed. If you look at the talk page, other editors have chimed in, while he ignores them, they can't be ignored by Wikipedia. I have reported him already to AN but he still thinks he own the article. Please do something about it. How many more editors must he chase away? (Look at the talk page and see) Thanks. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is some kind of weird hybrid between canvassing and forum shopping.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
There are many methods of dispute resolution. Starting a new section to discuss the same topic with the same editors is not one of them. Rather than soliciting uninvolved administrators, you should try to form consensus. Swarm ♠ 07:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

URs

Hi, Swarm – thank you, and just curious about the AC right vs. the AP right? I started being a little confused when I read Accounts with the account creator user right have no additional technical abilities... in the first section of the Autopatrolled project page. That of course led me to the Account creator page, so I thought I would ask you if AP is included in AC? or how else does that work? Be prosperous! Paine  08:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled

Is it kosher for me to nominate another editor here, or does the editor have to request himself? Valoem talk contrib 09:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Snow dance

Hello! You denied the speedy deletion request on the blank page Snow dance and in your edit summary you said it was a "course assignment." What did you mean by that? I want to make sure I am tagging things correctly. Thanks! --WayfaringWanderer (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @WayfaringWanderer: - Take a look at the section above. You didn't really do anything wrong, but the page was created by a student as part of an educational program assignment. Since it's clearly an article-to-be, I didn't see any reason to delete the page, I think doing so would be bitey and not of benefit to the project in any way. The only thing I would say is that generally speaking, you should not tag articles for deletion within a few minutes of their creation (WP:CHANCE). Nothing outright improper was done on your part though, so don't worry about it. Swarm ♠ 07:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth

Hi Swarm. It seems that when answers Paine's request for autopatrolled, you accidentally granted the accountcreator right instead of autopatrolled. I fixed it just now, but I just wanted to let you know. --Biblioworm 20:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The Garage rock article just went GA!

I have some great news! The garage rock article just went GA! Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much!
Hey, one more thing. I nominated the Garage rock article for DYK by Nov. 26, but I think I made a slight mistake in how I entered the hook. There is a blank hook-line with a question mark, then there is my trivia hook, with the thing about Rick James and Neil Young. I hope I didn't mess it up. Did I get the date right, or should I re-do it on a later date? It is my first time. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Ja Rule

Renew PC? --George Ho (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Mafia

QYQALLA. Exactly 10 edits and then waits exactly 4 days. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

user:Tomica

Hi, sorry to bother you, but I saw you've handled with the above user with blocking before right? They've been up to their old tricks of the three revert rule of several Rihanna artricles including American Oxygen, Don't Stop the Music and Pour It Up can you have a look into it please? 82.132.245.87 (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I haven't violated the 3RR on neither of the articles. And even if I did, I would have been right, in the first case you are adding a genre without adding a reliable source of the article, instead of doing that you came to my talk bothering about that. And there is no reason changing the genre on "Don't Stop the Music" from 'dance-pop' to simply 'dance' cause the former is more specific. — Tom(T2ME) 11:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Tomica no you would've been wrong trap was sourced from when Bitch Better Have My Money came out and the book called Don't Stop the Music a dance track, please read its source 82.132.234.244 (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The book that is cited right now tell dance-pop which is more specific genre than dance, and thus, that one should be used. I explained you that already. And for "Pour It Up" maybe you were right, but instead of telling me what you are now, you posted bunch of crazy links on my talk. Anyways, I didn't break the 3RR. — Tom(T2ME) 14:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Tomica you DID break the 3RR as you DIDN'T wait the full 24 hours before you reverted the edit on Pour It Up, and iTunes refer dance to be the main genre, EDM, dance-pop etc, are all subgenres to dance. Therefore as the genre is stated as a dance track that means it can be added and SHOULD stay there. 82.132.219.126 (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Question

When a user is blocked indefinitely, is it possible to restore in his talk page the previous content or there must be the indefinite block template only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.105.209 (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Previous content can stay there/be restored if needed, that's 100% fine, and it generally shouldn't be removed in the first place unless done by the user themselves. Swarm ♠ 16:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. In case the previous content was just one admin's teasing and such admin restored the content after another admin had blocked the user and added the indefinite block template, is it possible for the user to have the template back in place of the irrelevant content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.51.214 (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Question

(The following is my reply and question which has never received an answer, I will be grateful to you if you may answer when you have time to do it.) Thank you. In case the previous content was just one admin's teasing and such admin restored the content after another admin had blocked the user and added the indefinite block template, is it possible for the user to have the template back in place of the irrelevant content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.51.214 (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.104.101 (talk)

Deletionist apparently acting out of Spite

There is a user who is hell-bent on deleting my articles. While none of us can expect to never have an article deleted, this case seems ill-motivated and spiteful. If you look at my talk page, his language is flippant and sarcastic. He has changed his user name from "user: ABriefPassing" to "ALongStay" back to "ABriefPassing." I suspect that there is sockpuppetry going on in addition to the harassment. I also mentioned these same concerns to user: Lfarone. He recommended that I make a report. I am not familiar with this whole terrain. Can you help me? Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for coming to my protection. I am grateful for everything. Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

On a lighter note

Thanks for your help. On a lighter note. The garage rock article has been mentioned in DYK for Dec. 14! Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Block of ALongStay

I have responded to your block of ALongStay (talk · contribs) on the user's talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Swarm: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 20:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Question

(The following is my reply and question which has never received an answer, I will be grateful to you if you may answer when you have time to do it.) Thank you. In case the previous content was just one admin's teasing and such admin restored the content after another admin had blocked the user and added the indefinite block template, is it possible for the user to have the template back in place of the irrelevant content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.104.101 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.46.42 (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, if it's the user's own talk page they can basically do what they want with it, remove any comments, etc. they just can't remove a declined unblock request regarding an active block. Swarm ♠ 02:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, good! Then I would like to ask you a favour: I was talking about this page [6]; as you can see, one admin made an infinite block but another one has substituted the template with his previous teasing content. Could you please restore the template, since you are an admin who usually deals with blocks and that Italian admin does not want to undo his last edit? If you cannot, please tell me the name of another admin whom I can call on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.39.176 (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, well the Italian Wikipedia is technically a different project and I can't really comment on anything that goes on there whatsoever. I also don't have admin rights over there so I couldn't edit the page anyway. I don't know what the rules and community standards there are. Assuming the rules are the same as here though, the user should still be able to request that an admin blank the page. That would be up to the Italian administrators, though. Swarm ♠ 01:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
OK

Wishing you a warm Florida Christmas, Swarm . . .

And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

  • @Dirtlawyer1: Hey! Thank you very much for the warm wishes, and same to you! This has been the neverending summer down here so it's looking like your wish will come true. :p Hope all is well and I'll see you around! Take care, Swarm ♠ 01:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your tireless work involving in edit wars, article delete requests, blocking users and giving user rights, and making Wikipedia a better place!
Merry Christmas! Dan Koehl (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!!
May you and your family have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help and support, and of course all your work, on Wikipedia!

   – Onel5969 TT me 03:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled for user talk page creation

Hi Swarm, seasons greetings! Just a quick question, from my understanding of the mediawiki software, when a new user talk page is created it still requires patrolling/marking as reviewed - why isn't the Autopatrolled right also given to those who are active in welcoming/contacting new editors (thus creating their talk page)? -- samtar whisper 15:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  • @Samtar: Hey, happy holidays! New page patrol is a voluntary, informal process to check new articles when they're first added to the project. While I guess all new pages are technically flagged as 'unreviewed' according to the software, in practice, actual "new page patrol" is meant to be for articles. Special:NewPages is divided by namespace, and new page patrollers are supposed to patrol only the article namespace (at least, according to WP:NPP). I don't know if there are actually new page patrollers who patrol the other namespaces, but it's not something that's encouraged as there's really no point in doing so, it's basically a waste of time that could be better spent patrolling new articles. Swarm ♠ 05:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays and 2016!

Hi Swarm. I'm thinking of removing the autopatrolled flag from User:SSTflyer's account. He has a lot of problems with his editing and the vast majority of his creations are extremely short 1-line stubs, Chinese language redirects, and already deleteted redidirect or dab pages. This does not demonstrate a knowledge of guidelines. What do you think? Also, your name is not displaying at the top of your talk page - check your CSS or whatever it is. Best wishes, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It is by design. He is using white-coloured font. If you highlight the area you can see the page title. It may be a visual metaphor for snow. :) Dr. K. 02:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
@Kudpung: Yeah, I remember that being a borderline case given the stubs he was creating, but my review didn't turn up any glaring problems and I thought him to be trustworthy. If there are indeed a lot of problems with his editing, of course I'd be okay with removing the flag. I'll leave it up to your judgment. Oh, and yeah, it is by design, though unfortunately I can't claim any sort of metaphor. Just something I ripped off someone else's user page years ago because it was different. :P Swarm ♠ 03:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I guess there goes my theory about White Christmas and all that. Thankfully, I can always blame it on the spirit of the season. :) Dr. K. 06:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Seriously?

  • @Pedro: I'm "banned" from your talk page? For a very friendly and reasonable policy reminder, in place of a block that I was very keen on issuing? The personal attacks were quite obvious and the friendly reminder was literally nothing short of an act of pure respect; I would not have hesitated to block any other user for such comments. You have absolutely no right nor authority to "ban" me from your talk page in response to an administrative behavioral warning and I will not hesitate to drop by again should there be a need to—I only post this response here because apparently you would simply delete it without any regard. Not only am I disappointed, but I'm shocked by your reply, and I'm not sure what happened. You used to be well above that and were what I thought was an exemplary administrator. If you no longer aspire to hold yourself to our expected standards, maybe it's best you resign the tools. When one administrator stops caring about their behavior, it damages the reputation of all of us and it makes the project look bad. Swarm ♠ 01:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Pedro has hardly edited at all for the last 5 years, but I have also recently had some sudden, unprovoked distasteful comments from him, or about me in other places. Perhaps his admin account has been compromised - he used to be an admin whose work I appreciated very much. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't know what happened. Pedro was, for years, listed as part of my recall process as one of the trusted editors who unilaterally recall me—he was only removed due to inactivity this past summer. It's disheartening to see such a change if it is him, as I thought he was one of our better admins. You may be right about his account being compromised. Swarm ♠ 03:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I sent you an email, did you get it? I don't want to keep harping on about it but without even looking I've stumbled on a lot more irrational edits. It looks as if he targets admins, including Floquenbeam, Roger Davies, and WTT, among others. It's just the tip of an iceberg that goes back to the time when he suddenly practically stopped editing. He probably needs counseling rather than chastizing but at the moment he looks like a loose cannon.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Happy Holidays!

Hi Swarm. Have a wonderful Holiday Season and a Happy New Year! Thank you for all the great things you do for this project. Take care. Dr. K. 02:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Dr.K. (talk · contribs), same to you! Swarm ♠ 16:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to you!

Amaury (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Swarm

I'm brand new to Wikipedia and seriously out of my depth. I'd be most grateful for assistance. I submitted a draft article which was rejected, with this comment:

Comment: Should he be called Richard B. Walsh or Risteárd Breathnach? This does matter, although the other name can and should be a redirect. Please include footnotes to external sources, not apparent footnotes that are really wikilinks. The list of his publications is too long. Shorten it. Please provide more independent third-party references.Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you tell me how to do a re-direct? I did a search but can't find the answer. The subject's name should be Richard B. Walsh and the Irish version of his name, Risteárd Breathnach, should re-direct to that. (It's very common for people in the Irish-language community to have 2 versions of their name but as searches are usually conducted in English, the English version will be more useful).

When the reviewer wrote 'include footnotes to external sources, not apparent footnotes that are really wikilinks' he was referring to my failed attempt to highlight a word in order to bring the reader to that Wikipedia page. How can I highlight a word (or a name) so that it links to its page on Wikipedia?

The reviewer wrote: 'The list of his publications is too long. Shorten it.' By removing publications that were reviews, either of the subjects work or by the subject himself, I have reduced the list of publications from 31 to 22. Would you say that's short enough?

I based my layout on the layout of an article about another linguist, Igor Melchuk, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Mel%27%C4%8Duk. On that page you'll see •a list of 24 publications •a heading entitled REFERENCES and a single reference under that: 'Elie Feuerwerker & Igor A. Mel'cuk. "Prison culturelle". Idées, Le Monde, 27 juin 1984, p. 2.' •and a heading entitled EXTERNAL LINKS under which is a link to and an exhaustive list of his publications hosted at his university's website.

In the same way I listed my subject's publications and included an EXTERNAL LINK http://bill.celt.dias.ie/vol3/singleindexes.php?IndexTypeID=5&IndexID=4300&OrderTypeID=1 which is to a list of his publications hosted on the website of the Dublin Institute of Advanced Studies.

By my reviewers standards, the page on Igor Melchuk would not be good enough to pass scrutiny, however, if it did not exist it would be a terrible disservice to people like me who work in this area. The information I was able to find on Wikepedia in relation to Igor Melchuk has played a significant role in the direction my work has taken.

The reviewer's request for 3rd party references is understandable. Would you have any idea how many of these I should provide?

I'd be really grateful for any help you can provide.

Believeingood (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Best wishes for a wonderful 2016! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Swarm!

Happy New Year!

Swarm,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 00:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Unsigned vandal back at Garage rock article.

I reverted two edits by an unsigned editor at the Garage rock article. This is apparently the same individual who has tried to make this same change ("rock") from different computers on other occasions--but this time went the extra step of (apparently) intentionally messing everything up without trying to go back and fix it. I was wondering if you could restrict access to registered users there, so we don't have to keep worrying about this disruptive editor. Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Requesting rollback

The user Helmoony is mass-removing "Tunisian arabic" in articles that was in place since several months. after the debate in Tunisia portal in september, an admin finally decided to grant the mention of Tunisian arabic for the names of people and places. Things were so settled since then, but the user Helmoony is recently removing all the mentions, could you please do something about it ? Thank you.Zangouang (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2015 End of Year Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2015 End of Year Report
Our 2015 End of Year Report is now ready for review.

Highlights:

  • Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page;
  • New record lows in the article backlog and on the Requests page;
  • Coordinator election results;
  • Membership news;
  • Changes around the Guild's pages;
  • Plans for 2016.
– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Baffle gab1978.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by Jonesey95 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Question about deletion

Hello, I was wondering what the protocol is on whether to decide to delete an edit due to controversial wording. I was wondering if you would take a look at this edit on the Lawrence Phillips article and see if what you think about it. Thanks. ... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lawrence_Phillips&type=revision&diff=699849243&oldid=699819264 .. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Creation–evolution controversy

Although editing is infrequent, two edits were reverted, including one this month. Is it enough for PC renewal? --George Ho (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

sure. --Swarm ♠ 06:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

New adoption

Hi!

There is an Iranian election coming up and I wanted to help people by giving them correct information. Unfortunately the pages related to it are incomplete both for Persian and English: https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D8%AE%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA_%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%84%D8%B3_%D8%B4%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C_%D8%A7%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C_%28%DB%B1%DB%B3%DB%B9%DB%B5%E2%80%93%DB%B1%DB%B3%DB%B9%DB%B4%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_legislative_election,_2016

I wanted to know if you could help me by adopting me!

Best, Amirishere (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Dereliction of responsibilities

I have rarely seen as bad an admin action as you took at 3RRN. I'm used to seeing admins here setting Wolfowitz-only behavioral standards, but this goes beyond the pale. It's painfully clear you disregarded my careful and detailed explanation there, and gave a free pass to an editor who undeniably violated 3RR and refused to explain their actions at 3RRN or elsewhere. I don't know who told you this was a "good faith misunderstanding over sources", and you don't even show the courtesy of identifying them or citing the statement. It's not at 3RRN, it's not on the Riley Reid talk page. Frankly, I'm disgusted, but not surprised. BLP says, unequivocally, that the burden of proof regarding BLP content removal rests with the editor who wants to restore it, and it shouldn't be restored without getting consensus. It's one thing to disagree with the policy, it's another to use your administrative authority to defy it. See my further comments at 3RRN. I have roughly 75,000 edits here, about 4,000 related edits at commons, a long and accurate record of BLP enforcement and do not deserve to be treated like a second-class editor. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know you and I'm not sure what kind of personalized treatment you expect good or bad, but frankly your approach in all of this is noted as extremely counterproductive and unhelpful. You've made absolutely no attempt to discuss the issue in good faith until you've been reported for edit warring; your diatribes at AN3 are not appropriate given your lack of good faith discussion elsewhere. Even if you're completely in the right in the content dispute your behavior has been disruptive, until you change your approach and are willing to work collaboratively in good faith in the proper forums, you can spare me the wildly rhetorical diatribes and accusations of bad faith and pedantic wikilawyering. BLP is fundamentally meant to prevent harm, and although our strict rules do apply to this BLP, it's pretty clear that this is a fairly minor content dispute resting on conflicting understandings of the available sources and should be discussed just like any other content dispute rather than edit warred over, just as you were recently told at ANI. If you think it is otherwise, you're free to raise that in the correct forums as well. I agreed with the page protection and responded to the report with no additional action, that's not going to change, and if another admin disagrees they're completely and utterly free to do absolutely whatever they want about it, but it does not appear your case is as cut and dry as you claim it is from everyone else's perspective. Swarm ♠ 01:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • And don't even attempt to tell me that I or any other administrator are somehow mandated to take your side just because you claim to be in the right in a minor content dispute on a BLP. That is not remotely rooted in reality. Swarm ♠ 01:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Please don't piss into my tent and tell me it's raining. Don't say things about me that plainly aren't true. You say "You've made absolutely no attempt to discuss the issue in good faith until you've been reported for edit warring". That's just plain false. You didn't bother to check. The edit warring report was made on January 16. I'd begun discussing matters on Rebecca1990's talk page on January 14. It's not "wikilawyering", as you would have it, to point out that, by any rational measure one selects, this was before the edit warring report. Rebecca1990 responded by accusing me of vandalism, soemthing she's done rather regularly rather than responding in good faith.[7][8][9] They regularly cast aspersions and make personal attacks, to the point that their behaviour was characterized as "absoutely appalling" bad faith by two different admins.[10][11][12] But nothing is done. Over and over, entirely without evidence, they characterize editors on the other side of disputes (like me) as dishonest. If you're going to get the basic facts of the instant dispute wrong, and ignore the broader context around the dispute, and conclude by saying that despite whatever can be shown to undermine your position, "that's not going to change", you've made an outstanding case as to why your opinions deserve exactly no respect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Well I'm sorry to say that you and I clearly and fundamentally don't see eye to eye here. That's fine. I didn't block you, nor take any action whatsoever. You clearly see this as a problem (I.e. Not taking action), therefore all I can do is advise you to seek out another admin. I don't think I've neglected my duties so it's best you take your case to someone else. Regards, Swarm ♠ 03:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Chitpavan protection

Hi, I'm a bit surprised to see this. Were you aware that EdJohnston, who regularly patrols AN3, seems to have already been handling it on the reported user's talk page? I'm also surprised that you do not consider it to be a 3RR violation but concede that it is a slightly tricky situation and someone who doesn't know much about the subject may miss the subtleties. - Sitush (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It was not a 3rr vio but I am not sure where I conceded anything. Also not sure where my response interferes with Ed's in any way. Swarm ♠ 03:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
And now I guess I understand why people are complaining above :( No worries, I'll get my way. - Sitush (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what you're talking about but remember ownership of articles is disallowed and considered to be disruptive editing. Swarm ♠ 05:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Skyring/Dennis Bratland/Winningest/etc.............

As you were the blocking editor in the report concerning Skyring, perhaps you could take a look at another involved party.

[[13]]

You were good in not taking Skyring's previous blocks against him, I hope whatever comments/action you consider best in this new report are equally fair, as this report seems to be pretty much identical as Skyring's, just with a different offending editor. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swarm/Archive_10&oldid=1145828454"