Jump to content

User talk:Swarm/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

On huggle

I missed the fact that you replied to a comment I had about your comment a couple days back. I replied here [1]. As I said there, looks like I misunderstood the point you were making. Sorry for that.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate you dropping by my talk page, and I'm glad to see we're on the same page now. Regards, Swarm X 06:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi! Can you guys (and with 'you guys' I mean RHaworth) please stop redirecting Italian PDOs page to the DOCs page? It is a different subject, the difference is as clear as the sunlight to any person with a minimum level of food and wine culture that we are talking about different things, almost like redirecting a page about Mac to a page about PCs, or one about water to one about swimming pools. Plus Rita Hayworth or what's the name of the user deleted the discussion page where it was clearly explained that s/he was messing pages deleting here and there without the basic knowledge on the subject. --Vale new (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, next time, please read at least the first two lines before deleting again. --Vale new (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

February 2011 Wikification Backlog Elimination Drive Awards!

The Cleanup Barnstar
This Cleanup Barnstar is given to Swarm for wikifying 1 article, a total of 10,014 words (including rollover). Thanks for participating, and please be sure to help out at our next drive! Sumsum2010·T·C·Review me! 00:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


RadioFan's RfA

It's always refreshing to see someone actually look at a candidate's contributions! I don't see a problem with this one, though. "1978 was to be his last battle" could mean he was killed at that battle, but that wasn't made clear until after RadioFan PRODed it. There are lots of retired warriors, after all. This one is certainly awful, though. 28bytes (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops. I reread that version of the article and I misread it. It actually doesn't imply that he was dead. I accidentally took the sentence "Ali Askaris father Sheik Abdullah of Askar, was one of the persons who supported Sheik Mahmmod al Hafid" as "Ali Askaris, father of Sheik Abdullah of Askar, was one of the persons who supported Sheik Mahmmod al Hafid". It looked like it was writing about a person in the past tense (suggesting they're dead, obviously). My mistake. I've crossed it out. I still feel I've made my point, but I'll return with more examples if necessary. This is quite an experienced user, after all. Anyway, thanks for the correction! Thanks for paying attention on your part also, it was your neutral vote that gave me pause to look at their contributions in the first place! Regards, Swarm X 06:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Glad to assist. I always hate opposing anyone, but I'll probably end up doing so in this case unless there's a really good explanation for the BLP issue, because that combined with the sloppy PRODs you unearthed is just too much to ignore. 28bytes (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCopter

I posted a note at User_talk:WikiCopter#Some_thoughts_on_disputes in which I invoked your name, so I thought I should mention it to you. --SPhilbrickT 16:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much. While it was my intention to try to capture your point, I don't know you well enough to speak for you, so wanted to give you an out in case I didn't capture it. However, I thought your goal was well-intentioned, and some others comments made it sound like you were suggesting that someone lie. I'm glad it worked. You are right, my main goal was to give the candidate something reasonably positive on a day which might not be going the way s/he hoped.--SPhilbrickT 02:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikify's March Mini Drive

WikiProject Wikify's March Mini!

Hello, I thought you would be interested in the March Mini, a coordinated effort by WikiProject Wikify members to eliminate the 2008 backlog of articles tagged with {{wikify}} and/or {{dead end}}. Come join in the fun! There are only three prizes to be won, including a special barnstar created just for this drive!

Regards,

WikiProject Wikify

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 04:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC).

Patience Barnstar

I can't find an appropriate barnstar to reward you for your incredible patience on the etiquette page. Then again, I'm not a big fan of barnstars so a big thankyou for keeping Wikipedia the way it ought to be will have to do. All the best ► Philg88 ◄ talk 12:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Phil! This is very much appreciated and it's as good as any other barnstar. I try to be patient and helpful but it's nice to know I'm doing a decent job at it. Thanks again and best regards. Swarm X 00:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
You are most welcome. See you around. Best Regards, ► Philg88 ◄ talk 00:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

List of films considered the worst

Thank you for help me with The Scarlet letter. I've post also a new message to remove Highlander II: The Quickening; thoughts on this?--Kekkomereq4 (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


March 2011

I accidently deleted your comment on the WQA boards sorry! care to put it back up? Intoronto1125 (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I just put it back up. Swarm X 19:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok great! Intoronto1125 (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

my76strat

User_talk:My76Strat#Poll  Chzz  ►  05:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For what it's wort,h I consider this to be "fair enough" - it does no harm; so I suggest WP:STICK. Just sayin'.  Chzz  ►  11:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  • You say WP:STICK, I say WP:DENY. What was that posting but an attempt for the "last word"? The user didn't come to contribute anything constructively, there was no real dispute, the user was trolling and we shouldn't be feeding them. Swarm X 11:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
    • You link to WP:DENY and implicitly call Gold Hat's edits a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". That's not what this is.
      Stop edit warring, please. Amalthea 12:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I am sorry,
You are right, I was wrong.
As your were writing that, I was writing this.
Again - I apologize. I got that one wrong. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  12:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Amalthea - sorry if I did anything wrong. I will not make any further reverts/undo's on that page (for, say., 48 hours. self-imposed common sense)  Chzz  ►  12:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries, but yes, I think it would be good to leave this in peace; it's getting rather WP:LAME (and I assume you noticed that you were past 3RR as well). Thanks, Amalthea 12:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Amalthea - I call Gold Hat's edits "disruptive," absolutely nothing more. My understanding of the essence of DENY, is simply not giving disruptive editors the attention they seek. If I've referenced that essay incorrectly, it's a mistake on my part: Don't use it to twist my intent. Chzz has given clear reasons for all of their actions and they don't owe you an apology. Swarm X 12:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that no apology is needed. What I meant to say is that WP:DENY focuses on vandalism and vandalism alone, and this wasn't vandalism. He's soapboxing though, I agree, and I certainly agree that he should cut it out (and that the big sig is annoying). But don't edit war over it, it's not helping; in fact, this turnedout to be the opposite of denying recognition, it's spread over a dozen pages now. Amalthea 12:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I reported this to AIV [2], and was advised to head to ANEW - so I did.  Chzz  ►  12:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Alright, then. I incorrectly referenced WP:DENY. And you're right. We should stop edit warring. Chzz and I are both clearly willing to do so. However, can you please, for the love of god, help us? If they're soapboxing, can you do something about it? Please? I understand if you'd rather let someone who's working AN3 handle it, but intervention is sorely needed. Swarm X 12:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
^for sure. I'm having a nice cup of tea. Not bothering with it. But yes...I wish it'd be sorted out. Swarm, thanks for being so understanding about this, and I'm really sorry about my earlier presumptions.  Chzz  ►  13:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't even worry about it. No thanks or apologies are needed, really. You're being the most helpful in trying to get this dealt with. If anything I should be thanking you for assisting. A nice cup of tea sounds good right now, this is unnecessarily wikistressing me out. Swarm X 13:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

And...this appears to have all been sorted out; Block 2497342 targeting Gold Hat blocked by Elen of the Roads for 2011-03-19T01:04:12Z starting at 2011-03-18T13:04:12Z because Violation of the [[WP:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]: At [[User_talk:My76Strat]] and in a completely [[WP:LAME]] argument Flags: NOCREATE AUTOBLOCK ALLOWUSERTALK

For now, at least.  Chzz  ►  13:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For some definitions of "sorted out". I'd say it escalated/deteriorated. Edit warring had stopped anyway, and we could have tried to talk it out. Instead, we now have an editor who will be even more pissed than before. Not helpful, IMO. Amalthea 13:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. You have to realize that this user was being disruptive. They were trying to cause disruption. Read my comments on Elen's talk page, or Chzz's talk page. I've explained the situation several times. They stalked my edits to that page where they proceeded to troll me. Why? To get back at me for asking them to change their sig? Chzz and I went over the top as well. It was utterly WP:LAME. The difference is that we recognized that we did so and stopped. Gold Hat did not acknowledge that they were being disruptive, ignored all warnings and attempts to communicate, and didn't stop: despite all that happened, they've still managed to get their comments to stick. I'll even adapt Chzz's voluntary 48 hour 0RR if it would make you feel any better. But I certainly hope the user gets it now and will back off. Swarm X 13:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a bit more to it: that editor was previously discussed at length  Chzz  ►  13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As I just said elsewhere, thus far I was only focusing on the edit war, the content of his posts, and the claim of illegitimate use of alternate accounts. Now that I looked closer at how that conflict started and saw those edits in contexts with those on his and your talk pages, I agree that he was provoking you. That is disruptive. Sorry, I should have seen that earlier. Amalthea 14:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That means a great deal to me, Amalthea. I was too hasty and should have explained the situation clearly to you. I completely understand the basis of your assumption. It happens. Best regards, Swarm X 14:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's good. I freely admit, my own conduct was not good though; I should've detached from it sooner than I did. You're right that I was a bit hasty because of the subject (a friend 'retiring', and losing a good editor), plus I've had other off-wiki stresses (as I have friends over in Sendai, Japan) - not that those are good excuses. I know I misjudged, and I need to learn to take my own advice more - to step away and drink tea. So, apologies, and thanks.  Chzz  ►  04:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Media

Appreciate you dropping in on that stupidity. The state TV figures are still cited in the overall air superiority article, remove if you wish to. I feel like we are talking to a brick wall though, nothing seems to be getting through. Not even my comparison of state TV figures to unicorns being killed. That was at least worth a laugh. Oh well. Humor is lost on some I suppose.--Terrillja talk 07:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha! I'm incredibly inclined to make the infobox say, "48 civilians killed, 150 wounded, 2 unicorns killed (government claim)". That would be vandalism of the year, right there. Maybe throw in a "1 T-Rex wounded" for good measure. I'll humor this argument a little longer before bringing out an IDHT reference. I think you'll agree it's pretty much spent. Swarm X 07:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries, I just thought it was going to be another reference to where I come from. Though I do have to admit that it is interesting to see this unfolding after having spent a significant amount of time in the former Yugoslavia. But I'm not even going to pull out half the language I learned over there. They were very vocal when dissatisfied we'll say. Though I did not see any unicorns or a t-rex injured during the fighting.--Terrillja talk 07:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
And Gaddafi really likes his unicorns. He was deeply saddened to hear that they were killed. I heard it on State TV. Really!--Terrillja talk 07:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's very interesting to see this unfolding. Though I can't say I've ever left my relatively stable continent. And I can only imagine that spending time in the former Yugoslavia was...linguistically enriching.
Regarding the unicorns-- don't worry. According to State TV his unicorn chariot army just had a triumphant victory. This was confirmed by text messages, so you know this info's good. Swarm X 07:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Language

I accept your appology. Thank you. Now, I would like to make a compromise proposal I already made to Terrillja but he has started threatening me with blockage if I continue my discussion. My proposal is the following. We will put the number of civilian casualties to be unknown. Ok? Just as you request. However, in small font, in the notes section we put something like Government claiming 48 civilians killed and 150 wounded, however this information has not been independently confirmed and there is a possibility of it being propaganda information. What do you think? EkoGraf (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion might be relevant in the future, so I'll reply on the talk page. Regards, Swarm X 07:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Will see you on the talk page. Also, I just came up with perheps maybe a better sentance. How about this Government claiming 48 civilians killed and 150 wounded, however this information has not been independently confirmed and government figures have been showed as unreliable? EkoGraf (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Or even maybe add after unreliable...unreliable or misinformation. EkoGraf (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: "TCO, do you ever support RfA candidates?"

FYI as you may have now noticed, there is a support from TCO on the current RFA page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Valfontis, written two days before your question/comment. I know you were only trying to indicate your support for the candidate, but to a spectator it is disheartening to see comments like this that a trivial amount of research would have rendered mute. Ajbpearce (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to lighten up. The ":P" emoticon clearly indicates a joke or jest, nothing but a bit of sarcastic humor since TCO always seems to be opposing candidates per lack of content creation. I'm not trying to discredit their comment at all, I just think found it humorous that they are the sole, admittedly "pretty fucking weasely caveated oppose" on an otherwise 100% supportive RfA. Again- try to lighten up. Swarm X 23:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, sorry if I offended you. I am a big proponent of a more casual WP environment in general and I'm sorry if my comment came across as as bitey or harsh. But the fact is that you made a comment which (funny or not) did not consider the author's evident RFA contributions on the same page. Given the unfortunately fragile nature of RFA I felt it was legitimate to call you out for the lack of "thruthiness" yourcomment showed, in regard too the other comments available on the same page.Ajbpearce (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
You didn't offend me-- I'm just trying to say: it was a joke, TCO clearly got the joke and my comment was sarcastic and not meant to be taken literally. Swarm X 19:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


Barnstar

The Newyorkbrad Dispute Resolution Barnstar
I agree that you deserve it, as you resolve many WQA disputes perfectly! Jasper Deng (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks a lot for the barnstar! I try to be thorough and helpful and work against the perception that WQA is a worthless dramafest. I appreciate this. Swarm X 07:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You're doing an excellent job and you're very welcome.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform

See this. Would you eventually be interested in being part of the team? It would need a high degree of availability.Kudpung (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

See also User:Kudpung/RfA reform. You may not agree with it all - that's what it's for: to get comment, but hopefully at task force level. --Kudpung (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

WQA incident

Hi Swarm. I didn't know this at the time, but I happened to learn today that about six months ago you became User:GoetheFromm's adoptive parent. I wonder if that couldn't be considered a possible conflict of interests in relation to your handling of GoetheFromm's WQA alert against me.[3] You are being asked this as a genuine question for its own sake, not as a challenge of your competence as an Admin or an implication of any wrongdoing on your part. Thanks.—Biosketch (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

collapsed for navigational purposes
Hey, Biosketch. I hope you can accept my assurance that I'm not 'on' GoetheFromm's side necessarily, and I would have handled the situation the exact same way had it been anyone else. As for it being a COI, I don't know...adoption is a really loose, flexible association. I've really only communicated with them once since adopting them, and that was back in December. However, it's a legitimate concern, so I'll refrain from involving myself in any future disputes between you two. I hope that's a satisfactory solution. Regards, Swarm X 20:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Swarm, please accept my apologies on behalf of Biosketch's behavior. My opinion of this matter is that he is attempting to approach his perceived grievances in as many ways possible (i.e., three separate noticeboards, not including the one on the issue of his civility). Your past help has been very useful and I look forward to corresponding/working with you whenever appropriate. Again, really sorry about this. Sometimes things escalate... Take care, GoetheFromm (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
User:GoetheFromm, you are of course free to contribute to any discussion at Wikipedia. I would kindly ask, however, that you respect the personal nature of my correspondence with User:Swarm and allow our communication to proceed uninterrupted. And please in the future do not make apologies to other users on my behalf without my having authorized it.
Swarm, I appreciate your offer to refrain from involving yourself in any future disputes between GoetheFromme and myself. Understand that I have nothing against you as a contributor to Wikipedia in general, as I've observed your input in many areas to be admirably intelligent and constructive. It is only in your capacity as an Admin, and only in this particular case, given its circumstances, that certain questions are raised. I am also glad that you acknowledge the legitimacy of my concern. Even the most esteemed judges, after all, will excuse themselves from a trial if they had prior contact with an involved party. It seems to me that the proper course of action at this point, as a natural extension of our understanding, would be to erase the warning issued against me on my Talk page. These are my personal cogitations, submitted in the best of faith for your consideration.—Biosketch (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You're right. Glad we agree. That message wasn't some type of serious warning or anything, it's more like a simple reminder (though we do have more serious warnings) and you're free to remove it if you feel strongly about that. Let me just urge both of you to try to keep a cool head in your future dealings. Regards, Swarm X 00:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Swarm for your contributions on this matter relating to myself and Biosketch.
I gotta admit that I'm a little surprised at manner in which you've retracted the legitimacy of your actions . But I do understand what it is that you are addressing.
As for Biosketch's comment about the "personal nature" of his correspondence...if there a single mention of me, directly or indirectly, then that means that I am involved and privy to whatever is being said and I will each and every time address what is necessary. My apologies about your behavior, Biosketch, is something that I should clarify. I wasn't apologizing in lieu of you, but rather my apologies were towards behaviors that I am sorry are occurring. GoetheFromm (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't necessarily retract the legitimacy of my actions, I just feel that if a user thinks my involvement in something is not appropriate, it's most reasonable not to become involved. I think I could give unbiased dispute resolution, but how helpful can I possibly be when one of the parties feels I have a conflict of interest?
On another note, how are you doing? You haven't needed any assistance from me in over four months, have accumulated nearly 700 edits and have already been awarded a barnstar. Seems like pretty good progress to me. Swarm X 11:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
@Swarm, while this may seem a trivial request, I would be sincerely grateful if you would be the one to edit my Talk page and remove the warning, and we can all at last move on and put the whole affair behind us.—Biosketch (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Swarm, again I want to say I appreciate your help and appreciate your clarification on your position and rationale on the matter. LOL, I was just thinking when I was on your talk page that you are a "classic" admin (which is a compliment) in that you have a good way of diffusing and containing controversy and contention.
I've been doing well on wikipedia, thank you, with exception of getting mired with an editor from time-to-time. Yeah, I'm proud of the quantity and quality of my edits (and my barnstar). I try to do a little bit everyday, that's my motto.
As for help, thanks for asking, really. I'd like to eventually learn the process of adding and removing photos to article. Not quite sure how that works? Is there a cache or storage in which pictures are stored and then retrieved to add on an article? i really have no idea.
There are articles that I have been observing that are simply atrocious and are similar to a Frankenstein monster where the individual writing styles, conflicting facts, verbose and fallacious description can be likened to the separate body parts acquired from different corpses to create the monster. i've been tempted to be bold and address the larger issues of those article but I haven't out of fear of offending. Thus, I've made moderate grammatical and style changes and fixed egregious issues. Still, the articles that I am thinking about need a entire rewrite (and I'm one of the many editor who thinks so) but I'm not quite sure how to go about it. Best, GoetheFromm (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

How are you Swarm. Perhaps you did not notice but I left you a comment here last week and you still haven't replied to it. Is it because (a) you didn't see it? or (b) you've been deliberately ignoring it? or (c) you've been busy and haven't had time to direct your attention to it? Again, I understand the message on my Talk page was "a simple reminder" and that I'm "free to remove it"; but, for the reasons we discussed above, it would still be grateful if you would be the one to remove the message.—Biosketch (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform

I'm beginning to find Epipelagic's comments and manner of expressing him/herself less than helpful. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I must say I agree. I'm curious as to what brought this user to the page in the first place, as they don't seem to be remotely involved in anything similar to the project. Perhaps their viewpoint stems from this and this drama; not really important I guess. Swarm X 06:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It was Jimbo's comment on Strat's popularity poll, and the thread I started on Jimbo's page that set the whole RfA reform in motion. Clearly a user with a combative nature and an aversion to all things administrative. If he comes on my page again with anything unconstructive, I might make a polite suggestion. After I've moved that page to WP space, there is probably little I can do. Experience shows that probably the best thing to do with such comments is to ignore them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
You're right, it seems they're doing little more than unconstructively soapboxing their anti-administrator opinions. I think it would be reasonable, WP space or not, to politely request that they either keep their comments focused on the matters at hand or refrain from commenting. I'm sure they'll be reasonable enough to oblige such a request. Swarm X 07:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I just hope that now I've got the mop I can keep my cool ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I was gonna remind you not to go crazy and block him in a mop-fueled rage :P Swarm X 07:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


RfA reform

Hi Swarm/Archive 4. I have now moved the RfA reform and its associated pages to project space. The main page has been updated and streamlined. We now also have a new table on voter profiles. Please take a moment to check in and keep the pages on your watchlist. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Swarm. It looks as if I'm the coordinator of this project. Although I started it, I'm an admin already and have nothing personal to gain or loose, but I don't really want to be seen as the leader or pushing my own opinions or ideas. Would you consider being a permanent coordinator of the project? It would mean doing the kind of stuff you are doing already, and moving threads to their respective new sub pages as they occur, and perhaps striking or removing inappropriate or irrelevant comments, and generally keeping the whole thing on track. If we start a very short coordinator list, I would put my name on it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to. Just let me know where to sign! Swarm X 03:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
HERE. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Done. How many coordinators are we expecting? Once we're all on the list I'll throw it into the transclusion. Swarm X 04:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I've thrown out four invites, but I'm sure some genuinely won't have time. With me, three would probably be a good max number I guess. Suggestions? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think three will be plenty to complete the various administrative tasks that are required. — Oli OR Pyfan! 11:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Swarm X 20:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Question?

Hello, why did you treat me so badly? You did not show admin like behavior. It seems you have no remorse.Zombie Douche (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This has been explained on your talk page. Swarm X 20:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

But your comments were not of professional behavior and I dislike that.Zombie Douche (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It's extremely unusual for new editors to go become involved in any 'behind the scenes' aspects of Wikipedia, and it's virtually unheard of for new users to start voting in RfAs before doing anything else unless they're a single purpose account. I strongly urge you to get some experience editing Wikipedia before voting in more RfAs.
Anyway, I sincerely apologize if I offended you. Regards, Swarm X 20:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I will continue to vote in RFA's. Please distance yourself away from my votes in the future, and yes you offended me badly today.Zombie Douche (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Then I will continue to suggest that your votes are indented and advise you to refrain from doing so. Best, Swarm X 20:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


174.55.89.17

Perhaps I should have specified disruptive editing as the block reason. Despite being warned repeatedly by the other user the IP continued doing what they were doing. Maybe they had the right facts, maybe not, but in a situation like that you are supposed to stop and talk. Daniel Case (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And yes, I have considered an IP talk page. Not a bad idea. Daniel Case (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Regards, Swarm X 01:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

File:20070307 Buffalo Common Council Districts.JPG

Regarding File:20070307 Buffalo Common Council Districts.JPG, I am fairly certain that there has either been a recent redistricting or one is imminent. Thus, that map, which is of questionable licensing, can be administered as if it is a problem file.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Break?

As you no longer appear to be on break, might I suggest removing the notice at the top of your Talk page? Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I find placing {{wikibreak break}} excessive, but perhaps {{semi-wikibreak}} would be more accurate to my status. Swarm X 18:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Could be. I just noticed it while checking out your Talk page and thought it should be mentioned. Cheers! Doniago (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I changed it. Why not, right? Regards, Swarm X 19:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


Northeastern US

Sorry for being unclear in my note: I meant that the article is presently about a specifically Census Bureau definition of the region. Of course the idea of a Northeastern United States exists independently of the Census Bureau; however, as long as we have an article concentrating on the Census Bureau's definition, it should have the parenthetical qualifier. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


I just...

remembered I owe you some text! For some reason it slipped my mind this week, I'll try to work up something over the weekend. 28bytes (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, 28! Swarm X 18:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
(Time flies, don't it?) Do you have a list handy of all the reform proposals currently on the table? I'd like to mention some of the active proposals under consideration but other than the addition of clerks I'm having a hard time finding them. 28bytes (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
That it does. At the moment, I believe 'clerks' is the only individual proposal that has been developed and discussed at length, but I believe every suggestion that has been raised is at Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Possible proposals. There has also been some discussion at Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives about radical alternatives. If I find any ideas that have been raised and aren't at the 'possible proposals' page I'll be sure to add them there. Regards, Swarm X 19:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
D'oh! I had seen Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives but didn't think to check its talk page for some reason. Regarding the invitation/ping we were discussing, what do you think of requesting that the folks who are still interested in participating go to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Possible proposals and add a section with their name to comment on the current or not-yet-suggested proposal they'd most like to see go forward? I'm thinking the format used by ArbCom (i.e. a "== Comment from xxxxx =="-style section for each commenter) might work well for this, to keep the discussions from getting too sprawling and deeply threaded. Perhaps you, Kudpung or one of the other project coordinators could start the ball rolling with such a section, to give the other participants an example to follow? What do you think? 28bytes (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Great idea! I've just recently been thinking about how we could move forward with this huge repository of suggestions; this sounds great. I'll be gone for a few hours, but when I get back I'll make a section. We can then use the discussions to decide which ideas to move forward with. Regards, Swarm X 19:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

((od))I've carried some tweaks that needed to be done after you created the proposals page. Perhapswe should consider some active canvassing for this project in a way that is perfectly admissible and done by many Wikipedia projects (most of them use a banner template, but I personally find it a bit kitch) along these lines:

  • If you are concerned with the present situation at RfA and are interested in reform of the system, you are invited to contribute to the reform project at WP:RFA2011. If you have time and are inclined, you may also wish to consider joining the task force.

One of the the best sources for participants to invite is among those who vote regularly at RfA who have voiced dissatisfaction in the system at one time or another, or who are , or have been active at voluntary clerking, i.e. making rebuttals at inappropriate !votes and comments, or removing long threads to the talk page,etc. Another source is WT:RfA, but care is needed here as there may be several who appear to advocate reform, but may themselves among the contributors to the drama. I left this, and a special message on the talk page of the WP:RFA2011/Task force regarding another incident. 00:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Thank you for fixing up the page. Anyway, canvassing isn't a bad idea either, and combined with 28's plan it could move us forward a lot.
Regarding KS, you have my full support (that has to be worth something). Swarm X 01:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wikifier: March 2011




To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Hello Wikifiers!

Sorry this Newsletter is late, It should have gone out a month ago. I've been very busy in real life and didn't have time to get over to the newsletter. In this edition of the Newsletter, we have an editorial written by our new executive coordinator; Guoguo12. Guoguo12 has succeeded Mono due to an indefinite wikibreak. We also have the results of the February and March Mini drives.

Happy Wikifying,

Sumsum2010, the assistant coordinator of WikiProject Wikify

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Wikify at 01:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

Feedback

Hi Swarm. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your feedback on this. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Do guidelines and advice pages have to be a wall of text?. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I see there is a new regular at RfA making profound contributions based on 115 edits. [4], [5], [[6]]. Which reinforces the idea that there should be an advice page for !voters that such participants could be quickly linked to. Perhaps I'll write it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This: Should be indented IMO. No need to wait or a clerk to do it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Wow. That html experiment is pretty cool. I don't think advice pages have to be a wall of text, but knowing Wikipedia, someone would probably strongly disagree.
  • That's why I think there should be a minimum experience level for RfA voters. Of course, before that happens (or in case it doesn't), I think an advice page for !voters would be a great idea. Perhaps it could be linked to in a group notice.
  • I agree, but I don't want to create drama. Swarm X 20:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Drama

If I were not so deeply involved in RfA reform, I wold have been sorely tempted to indent it, but as you say, thee is no need to create drama for the sake of drama - it does look like a deliberate attempt to mar an otherwise unblemished RfA. Nevertheless, if you read K's follow up statement, I think you'll age that he's gone to far this time and that it's really beyond joke now. There's been another 'neutral' since, and it leaves me wondering why. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Just looking through all the flame wars that sprang up as a result of that comment. Unbelievable. Less class than a coffin covered with Pokemon stickers. It was blatant, unequivocal drama mongering. No one had even taken the time to remove the problematic userbox- Keepscases, who was so offended, didn't do shit to address the problem! They just spewed their complaint in a barely connected RfA and watched the drama begin. Not even an otherwise-spotless candidate can't get through RfA without the bullshit. Swarm X 06:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Did you see the ANI that followed it? They tried to get Snotty indef'd while KS is allowed once more to go away without so much as a warning. I doubt KS reasons for being on the reform task force. His behaviour does not strike me as being conducive to reducing the drama - or am I missing something in my 62 years of old age? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I did read through it with disgust, and I've shared my thoughts on the matter with Kiefer. All for some ideological crusade to "protect the unpopular". Right. I guess all you can do is apply trouts and barnstars as needed and hope the flames don't burn the site down. Keeps never struck me as wanting to improve RfA's environment, but after this incident It's blatantly obvious that he's not even remotely interested in maintaining a reasonable level of behavior- my mind is just blown by the drama they've just created. I don't know if it's ignorance on their part on how "hate groups" are viewed in some parts of the world or if they were deliberately comparing WP atheism to groups that advocate, for example, lynching black people or murdering homosexuals, but either way their comments were not only inappropriate, they were socially unacceptable. (FWIW, one userbox was blatantly problematic but Keeps made no effort to see it removed.) Swarm X 07:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
It was all discussed three years ago here and it reads as if it were only yesterday because absolutely nothing has changed in the years that followed, in spite of the promises, and the constant, unbroken stream of comments in these archives. The only thing that has changed is the regulars at RfA, and the participants at ANI. Perhaps a new RfC/U would have some effect provided the participants all read the old complaints first and do proper homework. There followed an RfC but it was never summarised and properly closed. Consensus seemed to be that other users are at fault for falling for the bait. Nevertheless, there were plenty of suggestions that he should stop this kind of participation knowing that it will incite a riot every time. Again, very few of today's familiar names, but there were comments from one of the most corrupt admins the Wikipedia has ever had. RfA reform can only begin to be taken seriously if an example can be made of one or two whose participation is clearly not in the interests of Wikipedia. It's one of those situations where you end up just banging your head at the wall. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Swarm,
Thanks to Kudpung for providing this history. (I have only followed RfAs for a few months.)
I was surprised to read about this history, given that the user-box still exists now, 2 years later. I found no discussion on the Atheism project's page, so apparently I was the first to discuss the matter with the group.
I was also surprised to learn about KS's history of complaints about WikiProject Atheism being a hate group. If I had such a complaint, then I would have acted on it in one of many fora. The most offensive ("unofficial") user-box was quickly removed, and I assume that the WikiProject will at least make some cosmetic changes to the collection of user-boxes, given several people commenting today.
I have more insight into SnottyWong's anger, given this long history, but I still think he should apologize for crossing the line. I think it appropriate that KS also apologize to the Lady for the latest hate-group charge and to the community for continuing such non-constructive RfA comments: I don't know why KS just complains without taking appropriate steps.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Based on the evidence, KS hate for imaginary hate groups appears to be only a means to an end - an end tat provides him with some strange but deep satisfaction for being the focus of the attention of the whole Wikipedia community every once in a while. Take away those user boxes and he'll no doubt find something else to disrupt RfA with. There is a vast difference between three years of persistent drama mongering, and an editor who is extremely helpfull, a skillful botwriter and a pleasure to call a colleague. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Your appraisal is shared by many, to judge by the grateful comments on Snottywong's talk page.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

...

Hey Swarm, I wanted to let you know I appreciate very much your consideration in my matter. Thanks and best wishes.—Biosketch (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :) Regards, Swarm X 20:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011 Wikification Drive

Sumsum2010·T·C 04:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Swarm. You have new messages at MC10's talk page.
Message added 05:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jsfouche

Hi Swarm. I noticed you said your oppose neutral was very weak. Do have a look at my comments in the Support section.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

My RfA

I just wanted to take a minute to thank you very much for supporting me in my recent RfA. Even though it was unsuccessful, I appreciate your trust. With much gratitude, jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

GOCE elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors

Elections are currently underway for our Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days and ends on June 30, 23:59 UTC. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! There is also a referendum to appoint a Coordinator Emeritus. Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 08:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Task force WP:RFA2011 update

Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Swarm. You have new messages at Steven Zhang's talk page.
Message added 14:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 14:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Adoption

Hello, Swarm. You have new messages at ElectricValkyrie's talk page.
Message added ElectricValkyrie (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RFA reform

Hi Swarm. I'm archiving my talk page but I haven't forgotten about this. Work has been keeping me from spending much time online this week but I will take another look as soon as I can. Best, 28bytes (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey 28. I actually submitted the delivery bot request yesterday, so you don't need to worry about it. I had some free time, so I figured why not? The message should be going out soon. Thanks anyway, though. :) Swarm X 00:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, OK! One less thing on my to-do list, I can't complain about that! :) 28bytes (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Errors In Message Delivery

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (Your input is requested). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 07:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

'Mailing' list

Well hell Swarm! You beat me to it :) I was only thinking yesterday that we should send that same message out. I think we're getting very close to proposing a candidate threshold, and we need to get a local consensus on what to propose. Good work! Did you know that I had already put a clean hidden list on the participants page? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, 28bytes and I discussed this idea a while back (time flies), so I figured it was about time to take care of it. And I did discover the hidden list- thank you, that's immensely helpful. Hopefully this yields some good results! Swarm X 19:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

DGAF?

WikiProject Wikify Discussion Invitation

Sumsum2010·T·C 23:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

leave no trace vs Leave No Trace

I saw your message. I am the one who separated leave no trace (the philosophy/principle) from Leave No Trace (an organization founded in 1994 that espouses the principle. Prior to my edits all uses ended up at the organization's article, which in most cases isn't the correct one. I believe I am taking care to leave alone any that truly refer to the organization. Thanks. 67.100.125.146 (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swarm/Archive_4&oldid=1144608476"