User talk:Swatjester/archive1

Welcome to Wikipedia, Swatjester/archive1

Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Here are some handy tips:

You can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~
Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date.
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 02:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying hi! (Plus it's actually my modified Welcome message User:Jokermage/w) Jokermage ^{"Timor Mentum Occidit"} 02:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding List of Half-Life 2 mods

This is in regards to your edits on the List of Half-Life 2 mods page. Please review what NPOV actually means, because that edit sure as hell ain't it. Thanks. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 03:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently involved in a dispute over the Firearms 2 inclusion on this page. I maintain, and can factually verify, that the Firearms 2 team, stole the intellectual property ownership of that title from the original team. I was an administrator on the original Firearms forums. The dispute is well documented at [1] on the forums, however, several users in this section have deleted my edits pointing out that such a dispute exists. I will continue to fight to have the truth shown in an NPOV way, until such time that it is satisfactually shown. If you don't believe me, visit the World at War site forums, [2], and view the posts entitled "Brain Droppings" in the World at War subforum. Swatjester 03:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete other users' comments again. That is against common Wikipedia etiquette. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 03:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out that even if your allegations are true that this development team is stealing from the previous development team, that does not affect whether or not Wikipedia can link to the mod. Please think of a good NPOV way to include this controversy on the List of Half-Life 2 mods page. (Revealing my POV...) And, for what it's worth, I'd just like to say that I spent a lot of time playing Firearms 1 back in the day (it was my favorite mod for HL1), and I do feel sympathy if a bunch of scallywags essentially stole it for Half-Life 2. I think my player name back then was Genre, if you remember me. I played a lot :-P Cyde Weys _vote^talk 03:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted comments that were off topic for that section. They could be moved to another section, if you wished, but they have nothing to do with the subject at hand, which was the creation of a new page.

Might I also point out that I think we're just not connecting with our two poitns of view. You have me mislabelled: I don't want to delete the link to Firearms 2. The link deserves to be there, they've created a mod and it qualifies for inclusion whether it is legal or not. What I DO protest, however, is the modification of my comments describing the situation and where to find further information. Those comments were NPOV, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be added "Currently in an intellectual property dispute with the World at War team, who claims ownership to the Firearms mod name". That is neutral, does not favor either side, and accurately describes the situation. Yet, every time I try to include that, I'm attacked by other users, who blame me for bias, while conveniently ignoring their own (not you.) That was the original intent of my edits, however I've been having so much damn trouble with Wiki's operation timing out on me, or getting error pages tonight, that I've been having problems doing it properly, and I keep getting interrupted. Are you having this problem too?

By the way, I don't remember your name off top of my head, were you in a clan? Also, thanks for the work maintaining the list. Back to the original topic of the Talk post, would you be interested in helping create the page for World at War, since it's not advisable that I do it myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatjester (talk • contribs)

First of all, you really shouldn't delete other user's comments on talk pages. If someone inserts off-topic nonsense in article pages then by all means get rid of it. But think of the talk pages as a sort of discussion board. Unless someone is blatantly vandalizing the talk pages or inserting patent nonsense, just let it stand. If your opponent in a disagreement over article comment is making all sorts of inane, stupid, and off-topic comments, and you delete them, you're actually helping him, because the outsiders looking over the debate won't see how crazy he is.

It's kind of iffy over whether the copyright dispute between the Firearms 2 and World at War dev teams belongs on the List of Half-Life 2 mods. It just seems sort of irrelevant. Maybe if you phrase it as placing doubt on the future of the Firearms 2 mod then it is relevant. Your wording is close to NPOV but terms like "claims ownership" are still kind of emotionally charged.

And yes, I was in a clan. It was one of the big ones. They ran the #1 server for a bit. And no, I don't remember the name. Sorry. If there's only a few clans that fit this description and you list it, I should be able to pick it out. And see Talk:List of Half-Life 2 mods as for why I don't think making an article on World at War is a good idea. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the Talk:List of Half-Life 2 mods page for my response. I explain the WHOLE situation in depth there.

reverting talk pages

Pot, kettle, black: [3]. I reverted the edit because it was an edit, by you, of another user's comment. It's obviously a misspelling of "proven," and I saw no reason whatsoever for you to change it. I figured it was inadvertent and thus reverted it back to the way the user had originally left their comment. Avriette 00:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and, uh, welcome to the wikipedia, nubcake. Avriette 00:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, what the hell are you talking about? I didn't edit that. I made a remark about Gonif still being around, on the talk page. You deleted it for no reason. I didn't edit anyones comment. Swatjester 00:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avriette, why don't you take a step back and look at what happened before calling me a nubcake (for someone who works at Microsoft, this may take WAY too much intelligence for you).

I added a comment to the talk section regarding 111!!!11one. My comment says "Gonif is still around. He plays DR". You reverted back and deleted that, on a talk page no less. That is bad form for 2 reasons: reason 1, you don't delete other people's talk comments. reason 2, you don't revert talk pages except for blatant vandalism. Furthermore, now you come onto my talk page and insult me (personal attacks are against wikipedia policy) and then start blabbering about some random edits that have nothing to do with my one small little section.

Looks like YOU messed up. I'll accept your apology. Swatjester 00:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the abovementioned link clearly shows, the comment is by Ferkelparade. Your edit changed that user's comment, the word "broven" to "br oven". As I said, it was probably inadvertent on your part. It does seem that you left a comment on the page, and I did miss that. And while you are in fact new, "nubcake" is not derogatory. Furthermore, in light of the article being edited, I figured it was appropriate. For contrast, implying that I'm not smart enough to accomplish something is in fact a personal attack. However, I am not really one to care. If you feel the need to edit comments of other users, you will eventually find that other users will complain to you as well. Really, this is kind of blown out of proportion for what happened. Look at the edit comment. I clearly stated that I didn't know why the change had been made, and reverted it. Simply saying "you reverted a comment I made" would have alerted me to what happened. Avriette 00:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that's exactly what I did. I said "Please don't delete talk page comments that are not yours." I still fail to see how you missed my entire sentence while reverting, but maybe that's because when reverting I use the +diff tool option. I therefore have not edited other users comments (the spacebar was inadvertant). Swatjester 01:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

additionally, it's customary to add comments to the bottom of talk pages. Avriette 01:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. On the templates page it has a "please add comments to top/bottom" template choice. I didn't see one on your page, so I put it where it was easiest for me. Swatjester 01:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as you become more familiar with the wikipedia, such customs will become apparent to you. Avriette 01:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, I'm well enough familiar with it as is. Customs such as "not personally attacking" will probably become familiar to you as you progress, judging from the history on your talk page you've had some trouble with that. Swatjester 01:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Unsigned

Sorry for the much delayed comment, I was a bit busy. To make something like that, type {{unsigned|USER WHO MADE COMMENT}}, so for instance, {{unsigned|Swatjester}} becomes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatjester (talk • contribs) when you click "Save page". I hope this helps. There are other unsigned templates out there, but I forget exactly what they are, and this should serve you well enough. Don't hesitate to ask more questions, it is how we all learn things. Cheers. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but on that note you have to know who the user was in the first place right? I was just hoping you could put in {{unsigned}} and it automatically would figure it out. So how do you track down the user name? Swatjester 21:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at the history of the page. See that little history tab up top? I just saw who made the comment and entered it in. I wish there was a way for it to figure it out automagically, but I don't think that would be possible. Bummer. See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Jason Gastrich

I noticed this comment on Jason Gastrich's talk page, and I'm assuming that "other user's" talk page you found him through was mine. Please don't fall for his cries of persecution. If it seems like everyone is ganging up on him, it's because his actions were so outrageous that no rational people could agree with him. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. Jason Gastrich has, among other things, used sockpuppets to vote on AfDs, recruited meatpuppets to vote on AfDs, sent emails to various Wikipedia members urging to vote on AfDs, filing over a dozen bad faith retaliatory AfDs, etc. I just thought you'd want to see the whole picture before you rushed to judgment on Gastrich. By the way, can't wait for World at War! --Cyde Weys 06:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it appears that you have already seen the RFC. Just wondering if that amends your comment on Gastrich's talk page at all. --Cyde Weys 06:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the WaW comment. I forgot you'd heard of it. :P I actually stumbled onto him through a different page, Stifle's I think it was. My comment to him had nothing to do with the RfC (which I hadn't seen but I had seen the AfD's drama, thus sort of negating the RfC yah?). I just felt like making the point to him. My feelings on evangelical atheism disguised as neutralism on Wikipedia are pretty public. Personally I think Gastrich is in error, and needs to learn a bit more courtesy as well as take a wikibreak. I totally agree with the majority of criticism against him. Keep checking in on the WaW site, we'll probably be putting some more news announcements with pictures and other fun stuff in a couple weeks, possibly (if I get my wish with the rest of the team) a video showing some of the newly implemented systems like classes, squads, RP's, and airstrikes.Swatjester 10:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical atheism? What are you talking about? Jason Gastrich is the one framing this as a sort of "Christians versus atheists" thing when in fact it is not. Many of the people Gastrich are accusing of being in the "atheist cabal" are actually Christians themselves, including the person who originally caused this ruckus by nominating various non-notable biographies for deletion. This whole thing is really about deletionism versus inclusionism, which doesn't care one way or the other about religion. --Cyde Weys 22:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical atheism is a term I came up with, though if someone else came up with it first then I concede. My comment to him was made without regard to the deletionist vs inclusionist argument which I give a quarter of a rats ass about. My comment was solely made because I'm sick of swarms of atheists and liberals descending upon anyone who holds a religious viewpoint on Wikipedia, by attacking them with cries of "OH NO RELIGION VIOLATES NPOV ATHEISM IS THE ONLY NEUTRAL WAY!". You know they're there, they're in any thread that attracts left-wingers and progressives of any type. They're there in the Greenpeace thread, they're there in any thread relating to president bush, or the US government, or abortion etc. I'm sick of it, and I'm sick of people who hypocritically claim to be neutral and unbiased while really just not accepting any point of view other than their own, and unfortunately the vast majority of atheist posts I've seen on the Wikipedia have been of that type. Once again, I'm not including you, I'm just saying it on a whole.Swatjester 22:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to even one diff of someone saying something along the lines of "Religion violates NPOV, so go with the atheistic perspective"? Because that's exactly opposite of what I've seen here on Wikipedia. This has been, to me, one of the most open places for religious expression. It goes waaaay beyond just Christianity and Judaism here, too ... there are lots of active Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, etc., editing Wikipedia. I haven't seen these "swarms of atheists and liberals" you're talking about. --Cyde Weys 01:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on Cyde, you know they're not exactly saying that. Swatjester 01:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Something along the lines of", not "saying exactly". Please give me a link to a comment by someone on Wikipedia saying something along the lines of "Religion violates NPOV, so go with the atheistic perspective". --Cyde Weys 01:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats just my point Cyde. They don't SAY it. They just DO it, and revert edits relating to religion, and cite NPOV. Swatjester 19:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh* ... okay, can you give me an example of some of these systematic atheistic cabal edits you're referring to? Yes, some editors have biases. But it seems to me that the religious editors tend to have more biases, and more often I end up reverting edits because they are POV from a particular religion rather than POV anti-religion. The last "atheist POV" edit I remember was a vandalism to God by an anonymous user, but that hardly counts. --Cyde Weys 19:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've run out of time until later tonight, or tomorrow, but yeah, I'll find you an example. Also, I'm not denying that the religious crowd does it too, I just haven't yet run across an article that has that. Swatjester 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking too hard, or too deep, [4] , and especially [5]. Both refer to reverts and edits. And now I'm late, but I felt like I had to get something in before I went to go play golf ;) Swatjester 20:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unprecedented terrorism

clearly is the result of the Iraq invasion, there is no way to deny it. People are dying every day from terrorist attacks not known to Iraq before the invasion. Please use the discussion page if you have any comment to make. Condescending language like "Anon's have no respect when it comes to reverting NPOV changes" which was your edit summary when you deleted "unprecedented terrorism" speaks poorly of you when the talk page shows others have exchanged thoughts already. What POV do you suspect by the way? It is a plain fact that there is terrorism in Iraq now that did not exist before. 84.59.108.128 14:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm well aware on how to use wikipedia. Please note that it's plainly shown that anon's do not get respect from many editors. As for the comment itself, the comment is POV by nature. What is unprecedented? Is it worse than the terrorism perpetrated by Saddam's regime? Was it worse than the terrorism perpetrated by both sides in the crusades? What about the holocaust? You can't claim "unprecedented terrorism" and as such, I will continue to stand by my comments. Now go register if you plan on lecturing people. Swatjester 22:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The respect you show for others is what you earn for yourself. There is no rule that says anons should not be discussed with, and you would just save all of us time if you did instead of reverting with condescending edit summaries. Furthermore, A registered user has agreed with the edit and explained his view at the talk page, and it is generally the practice that one should take into account what is written on the talk page. You should not take the words out of context. The terrorism is unprecedented in Iraq. One would not call what Saddam did to his people terrorism. Terrorism is suicide attacks and bombs on random civilians. This did not exist in Iraq prior to the invasion. If you suggest a better wording, you are very welcome. "Decisive Coalition victory" clearly is misrepresenting what acually happened. Take care. 84.59.93.251 23:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to Iraq, thanks, and the terrorism there before saddam makes precedent. Also, I didn't write the Decisive Coalistion Victory part, I'm just keeping the unprecedented terrorism part out. If, however, I had to defend the Decisive Coalition Victory, I'd mention how the Iraqi army was defeated in 3 weeks. That's the victory, over the army, not the insurgency. The insurgency is another case entirely. Furthermore, a single user, does not a consensus make.

Two users, plus no one argues against it, there are only reverts. Your personal experience should not make you blind to the fact that tyranny is different to terrorism. 84.59.93.251 01:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reverts are coming from you. That should be a sign to tell you to stop it. Swatjester 01:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what were you doing if not reverting without explanation in spite of what was discussed on the talk page? CSloat had saved the "unprecedented terrorism" from deletion already. [6] 84.59.102.68 11:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you, his sock puppet? He can speak for himself. Anonymous users do not get respect on this wiki. Nothing was discussed on the active talk page at the time of my discussion. Swatjester 11:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I already wrote, the respect you show for others is what you earn for yourself. As you can easily determine from my IP I am not from the same country as CSloat. And you are wrong, you repeatedly reverted in spite of discussion on the talk page under "result", "most recent changes", and most recently "legal aspects". I provided the links at talk. 84.59.102.68 11:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no respect for anonymous editors, even less for those who push POV, especially those who try to lecture upstanding editors. I think Wikipedia should ban anonymous editing. Too bad Jimbo doesn't listen to his editors. Swatjester 11:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you disrespect anons you disrespect wiki consensus. Removing factual information regardless of discussion is what I call POV pushing. 84.59.102.68 12:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice logical fallacy there. Posting POV statements and then threatening editors who clean them up is what I call POV pushing. Stay off my talk page now. I'd like it to be an anon-free place. Swatjester 17:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As others have already told you below, we have a content dispute where I am not alone disagreeing with you. Plus, I never threaten anyone via the internet, only childish people do that. Like those who say anon comments will be deleted 8^p I would also like to remind you that talk pages are for discussion. 84.59.87.214 18:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not alone, you have one other person. Wow. That's sure a consensus right there. And maybe you're not up to speed, but this is indeed MY talk page. While wikipedia frowns upon deleting comments, it's not policy, and I CAN delete pretty much whatever the hell I want on this page. Furthermore, you are the childish one, trying to instruct me on how to use a program I am already familiar with, while hiding behind the badge of anonymity. Until you come forward as a registered editor, you earn no respect. Swatjester 19:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You threatened to delete my comment from an article talk page. I do not hide anything by not logging in, if I did log in you could not see my IP, it would just be anonymity with a chosen name instead of a number. You deleted factual information and reverted more than three times with derogatory edit summaries in spite of what was discussed on the talk page, so reminding you of the rules is appropriate. And I cannot say often enough that showing respect to others is the way to earn respect for yourself. 84.59.70.133 02:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factual information my hairy ass. That is the whole point of this dispute, it's NOT factual information. And saying "Go register," or "anon's get no respect" is not a derogatory edit. Stop trying to sound badass, and stop making up false information about me. You're more anonymous as an IP, because as a registered user there is an email address, and a single account which can thus be banned or referenced on talk. You must know this very well because your various IP's have accumulated several different warnings about your actions, however there are so many that it can't all be in one place. And you NEED to stop talking about showing respect to others through your thinly veiled propriety, because you sure as hell aren't doing it. I never signed anything on wikipedia that said I needed to respect you, and I sure as hell don't. And I threatened to delete your comment, because it was specifically asking for a vote from registered users, and that is not what you are, since unregistered users are not allowed to vote as per WP:WHY. Thus your comments were just cluttering things up, and I may delete them sometime in the future. Be thankful I haven't yet, anon. Swatjester 02:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You DID remove factual information about what legal experts say about the illegality of the Iraq war here: [7] and [8] Edit summaries were: "Removed flagrant POV." and "go register before you start lecturing me, please." If that is not derogatory I do not know what derogatory means in your world. You are not entitled to decide whether one has to be logged in to contribute to a discussion, and you are the only one here who ever threatened me. And I cannot say often enough that showing respect to others is the way to earn respect for yourself. 84.59.90.88 10:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you find that derogatory, then you're probably too thin-skinned to be on wikipedia. Seriously, taking offense at me telling you to register before you lecture me? That's not derogatory. From dictionary.com "# Disparaging; belittling: a derogatory comment." Telling you to register before you lecture me isn't disparaging, nor is it belittling, and if you take it to be so, you need to take a serious inventory of your own self-image.Swatjester 11:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Go register before you start lecturing me" is derogatory, and "flagrant POV" even more so, especially when removing factual information. If you have any doubt about it, ask any other user. Except for TDC, he will probably tell you that it is good manners to tell others to shut the fuck up. Your whole tone is respectless, and respecting others and assume good faith is a basic wiki principle. Have a good night. 84.59.88.206 21:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I wasn't the first one to have to resort to cursing now, and you're going to lecture me on good faith, and derogatory? And you need to stop harping on factual information and learn what the word FACTUAL means.....I'm not the only one disputing the OPINION you posted. And I don't know this TDC you speak of, but another wiki principle is no personal attacks. Since you can't seem to follow wikiettiquette yourself, you can stop lecturing me about it, thanks. Swatjester 23:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TDC did not tell me to shut the fuck up, up to now you are the only one treating me with a lack of respect. There are frequently disputes about TDC's behaviour, a couple of complaints filed already, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC, Wikipedia:Account suspensions/TDC, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. He is quite active at the Iraq invasion article, too. The factual information you deleted was about legal experts' statements regarding the illegality of the Iraq war, as I already showed above: [9] and [10]. You are dishonest about deleting factual information and now you even denied trying to downplay the importance of the UN Secretary General and his legal advisors by defaming him. Would you agree that there are people with better manners? 84.59.99.253 13:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us post from computers we are not logged in to. There are various reasons for this. But yelling at people for not creating an account (or even logging in) is kind of unpleasant. I hate to harp on it, but please assume good faith. Even with users who haven't logged in. In fact, it's pretty easy to not notice you're not logged in. I do it frequently. I would hope that you wouldn't treat me that way. Avriette 03:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between posting accidentally as an anon because you forget you're logged in a couple times, and then coming back as a registered editor, and identifying yourself, and refusing to register for the sake of using multiple IP addresses to further a point. I wouldn't think you'd do that Avriette. Swatjester 04:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recon Battalions

I made some big chops to the recon battalion page. Take a look and edit as you see fit. I saw it in your Watchlist.--Looper5920 23:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

checking. Swatjester 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be appropriate to once again mention the difference between Recon Marines and Force Recon (i.e. Recon Marines act as LRRPs and are disbursed throughout the marine corps regiments, where as Force Recon is it's own seperate unit, now apparently under SOCOM. ) Also, I'm not sure exactly what the current status of the DET 1 ordeal is, but I don't thing that Force Recon is being called Det 1 entirely...I think Det 1 is just a detatchment of SOME force recon marines. Oh, and I think the whole page needs an "needs an expert" tag: I was army recon so I don't know enough about the marines to say myself. Swatjester 23:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on 2003 Invasion of Iraq

I would suggest against reporting that anonymous user for 3RR as you have violated 3RR yourself. It doesn't matter if one person thinks they are on the correct side of the issue; anyone reverting more than three times, no matter what the content, is in violation of 3RR. The only exception is for vandalism, but this isn't vandalism here, it's a content dispute. --Cyde Weys 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the 3rr page: "The three revert rule is not generally considered to apply to reversions of simple vandalism by users who are waiting for a sysop to block the IP, of course" I view this as vandalism as this user isn't even attempting to acheive a consensus on the subject and is evading through multiple IPs, as well as deleting the warnings from his talk pages. Swatjester 01:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what you consider "vandalism", it matters what the admins consider vandalism. And they aren't going to consider this vandalism. This is a content dispute over a very contentious subject. I'm trying to warn you that, should an admin get involved with this, both you and the anon are going to be blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. --Cyde Weys 01:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, if I get blocked for 24 along with the anon, doesn't really bother me. I've been posting about it on the talk page, and I'm about to post a once and for all request for consensus on the talk page on the topic. I've done what I can to stop an anon from pushing pov content, and whether the administrators can see that or not, doesn't really matter to me. I know I did the right thing.

Having said that, I've temporarily removed my requests based on Cyde's advice, pending a "request for consensus" i've asked for on the talk page. I urge anyone reading this to vote so we all know what the community wants. Swatjester 01:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. The point of WP:3RR is to prevent an unfortunate circumstance that is very harmful to Wikipedia: revert warring. Consensus-finding is the preferred resolution to revert wars (and preferable over reporting for 3RR, which just temporarily blocks users but doesn't solve anything). --Cyde Weys 02:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I get a different IP every time I log in. It is only one per day and I do not think you have difficulties to determine that it is always the same person you are dealing with. What do you think does it show if you report others for "vandalism" when you repeatedly deleted factual information, reverted ignoring discussion and made condescending edit summaries? 84.59.87.214 18:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing you need to do is get an account so we know we're talking to the same person. Also, anonymous users tend not to be taken seriously, especially if they don't even have a static IP address. --Cyde Weys 19:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution is a fact

Please see Stephen Jay Gould's seminal essay Evolution as Fact and Theory. Also, I'm now curious .. where do you fall on this issue, anyway? --Cyde Weys 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I believe in the theory of evolution. While I believe in god, I don't believe in a creation, I believe that evolution itself IS creation. Evolution, physics, math, biology, etc...everything is largely orderly and rules based....I believe that to be evidence of a design from a higher power. It, thus far, is the only thing that explains certain things. Einstein believed much the same thing.

For instance, an object dropped falls towards the earth (in normal situations). This is demonstrable fact. The reasoning behind this is the theory of gravitation. A very strong theory but as of yet unprovable. Yet, it's so well set up (gravitons, inertia, laws of physics), so orderly, that I feel a higher power made it that way. Or for instance, sound. Sound we know travels in waves. But what is the origin of the concept of waveforms? How did repeating oscillating frequencies, harmonious and complementary wavelengths, etc, how did all that come about? Why is there an equal opposite reaction for every action? Those are the questions that I feel that religion helps explain. The rest is up to science.

My point is that in the case of evolution, the physical act of evolution, i.e. a creature evolving and mutating is a demonstrable fact, but the concept of evolution as a derivation of human life is as of yet a theory. A very strong theory, but a theory nonetheless. THAT is what I mean. Swatjester 01:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq war

Hello Swatjester, just read at the Iraq invasion page that you participated in the war. Would you like to tell me a little about it? I am very much interested because I would really like to know what it is like for a soldier today. I am from Germany and have read a lot of literature e.g. by Heinrich Böll or Wolfgang Borchert about how wrong it felt back then to fight in an unjust war. As there was heavy opposition to the Iraq war all over the world I would like to know if there were US soldiers who had such feelings, too? I have recently seen the movie Jarhead about the first Gulf war. To me that war was a liberation of Kuwait, and even if there were dubious circumstances like the propaganda lie by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States about being a nurse and having seen Iraqis stealing incubators and throwing Kuwaiti babies on the floor. However, even then it seems many soldier did not feel so sure about what they were doing. I have the impression that the recent Iraq war was seen as a just war in the US, the only country known where the population supported the war. I once saw an interview with one of the soldiers who fired on the Palestine hotel killing journalists and he stated that unlike the whole TV watching world he did not even know that such a hotel with journalists existed. Opinion polls showed that a majority of the US population even thought that Saddam was to be blamed for 9/11 in spite of clear evidence that no Iraqi was involved in the attacks. Has the attitude to the war since changed? I hope that you are ok with my question and am very much looking forward to hear from you. Please feel free to be straightforward in your reply. If you tell me that the war was good because Saddam was killing his people I disagree but I am completely ok with exchanging conflicting points of view. Get-back-world-respect 18:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's a broad question, but I'm happy to answer. Could you be a little more specific in what you want to know? Let me start off by talking about Jarhead. Jarhead was a very good movie for portraying the feelings of the troops. Some of us didn't want to be there because they felt the war was wrong, most of us didn't want to be there because, frankly, we didn't want to be living in a hot desert for 6 months to a year. A few of the crazier people really wanted to be there. For probably 90% or more of the troops though, they understand that whether they want to be there or not, they're obligated by the terms of their enlistment to be there, so they get the job done as professionals (whatever it may be, refueling planes, mechanics, etc.) As for me, the movie hit home a little harder because I was in a recon unit, and participated in a scout sniper team much like Anthony Swofford's STA team in Jarhead (the two man team of Jake Gylenhall and Peter Saarsgard) Most of us don't believe any of the propaganda like the ambassador's daughter's claim: when you're in a city like Baghdad for even a day, you begin to meet and get to know the populace. Most of the population is indifferent to our presence so long as we aren't making trouble for them: the old "out of sight out of mind" philosophy. I would assume they justify that be thinking we're a force to enable a change for good. The minute there is some sort of interaction with them, whether it's a traffic delay from a checkpoint, or a conversation, or something similar, they realize that their country is in essence being occupied. Remember, they don't have access to american TV, and only a few have access to the major Euro channels like BBC, Sky, etc. Their only major form of information comes from Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and the other news stations. Al Jazeera, to me, exemplifies Arab corruption: It's news with an agenda, quite literally in bed with the terrorists. You can feel free to dispute that claim all you want, but when the terrorist organizations want to release their hostage videos, who do they send them to? Al Jazeera. Al Arabiya is a lot better, but you have to understand that the culture over there is different than Western culture. In Western culture, it is not ok to twist the truth, lie, or cheat someone. Back as far as 200 years ago in both Europe and America, that would get you killed. But in much of the Arab world (note I say Arab, not middle east. It's an arab-only trait that Lebanon, Israel, etc. do not personify, nor is it a Muslim trait. Islam has nothing to do with this.) it is perfectly acceptable to lie, cheat, and steal from a westerner. The justification for this is that the Koran tells them to. I'd have to look up which surah it is in, but it is undoubtably there (It's near the section about making infidel's pay the tithe tax). Well, after several hundred years of living with a religion that teaches that it is OK to lie, cheat, and steal from non-belivers, it's easy for many arabs living in Iraq to grow up with this bias and exemplify it in their daily life. Most of the time it's not directly related to the Americans as an occupying force: They'd do it to a British reporter, or a German tourist. We saw it at the checkpoints all the time. Without a single failure, most nights we'd stop at least 30-50 cars after curfew, who all had the same excuse: "I'm going to the hospital to see my brother" or "I'm getting a generator for my baby". While a few of those are believable, and we let them through, the majority of them are ludicruous and the Iraqi's couldn't even hide it. They'd laugh sometimes, knowing we know, but yet not understanding why we didn't just ignore it and let them through. I realize this is a bit off topic to what you asked originally, but I'm trying to help you get a better glimpse at WHY public opinion is against the war. As for American public opinion: I think opinion of the war would have been much higher were it a Democratic party in government, as much of the current dissent is really just criticism of the President. I don't like him much either, I think he's scum, but he's religious and that's why much of the left hates him...because god forbid anyone with religious principles takes office. The same criticism was there when John Kennedy ran for president, because he was Catholic. As for my own personal thoughts on the war: When I went over, I didn't know the truth, nobody did. Now, as more and more is revealed, I know my government deceived me. But I'm ok with that. Saddam's reign of terror was more brutal than you could possibly imagine. Every day I was in Iraq, I talked to at least 20 different people, more than half of those people had scars from his torture, or pictures of family killed for political reasons by Saddam. What kind of country would we be, having the power to stop such grotesque human rights violations, and not doing so? I'm ashamed my country had to push false reasoning for going to war. We should hve just stood up and said "we're going to stop Saddam's tortures." and that would have suited me just fine. I'd also like to note to you that the US was NOT the only country who supported the war. In fact at the time of the invasion, nearly all the countries except for Germany and France supported it. Even still large percentages of the population in Poland, Australia, and significant portions of the UK support it, as well as smaller countries I'm not aware of.Swatjester 21:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. That is very interesting. So you were in Baghdad? How could you talk to the people, do some speak English or do you speak Arab? Do they teach soldiers some Arab before they send you there? Why did you join the army?

As to Al Jazeera, I think it is quite natural that terrorists send their videos to the station most people they want to reach watch, that should not be turned against them. As far as I know it was the first station that really brought free journalism to the Arab world instead of state-controlled propaganda. And after getting bombed twice by US forces it does not come as a surprise that they do not present your country as the holy land.

When I stayed in Toronto for a year US media pretty shocked me. There is nothing as gung-ho in Germany as CNN was during the Afghanistan war. No questions whether it was right to put people in prison camps without access to lawyers, no worries about "collateral damage" when again dozens of civilians were killed. To be honest it reminded me of the Nazi Wochenschau that I saw in history classes. And I did not even watch FOX news...

When the Iraq war started I frequently read US online media. While the whole world was on the streets in protest, even a "quality" paper like the Washington Post wrote about protests in Berlin and ”a half-dozen other German cities” (March 23, 2003), when half-dozen was e.g. Leipzig, Halle, Dresden, Jena, Rostock, Hamburg, Munich, Köln, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Mannheim, Ludwigshafen, Nürnberg, Stuttgart, Wiesbaden, Karslruhe, Heidelberg, Würzburg, Bielefeld, Hannover, Dortmund, Essen, Bochum, Gelsenkirchen, Wattenscheid, Oberhausen, Duisburg, Mülheim, Herne, Hattingen, Velbert, Hilden, Datteln, Münster, Osnabrück, Bonn, Aachen, Saarbrücken, Kassel, Bremen, Oldenburg, Kiel, and Heide. Even in countries whose governments sent troops to Iraq the opinion polls showed the population was against the war, with numbers as high as 90% in Spain and Italy. [11] [12] Your neighbours from Canada were against it as well as pretty much all of Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Not to speak of Russia and the Muslim world. [13] Not even in the UK and Australia did the people want a war without UN mandate: [14] It is a shame that so many Americans still do not know this. Just look at those pictures: Never ever has anything caused as much outrage all over the world as the Iraq war. [15]

Are you sure the Qran encourages lying? That would surprise me. At least it does not make up "proofs" about weapons of mass destruction I guess 8^p What do you think about the fact that the US harbours the biggest arsenal of WMD, is the only country that ever used nuclear weapons on people, does not allow any inspections or scales down its cache although both are obligations from signed treaties, and then weapons inspections are used for espionage in order to defeat a country under the excuse of WMD that do not even exist? I completely agree that Saddam was horrible, everyone does, but does what the US did not completely undermine the credibility of the west and the value it once stood for: truthfulness, justice, respect...?

After the UN Charter was broken, how can we ever tell any country again that this is unjust? What if African countries start attacking each other with the excuse that the neighbouring dictator tortured people? How can we ask Russia to respect human rights in Chechnia now? They DO have proofs that the Chechens engaged in terrorism...

Here in Germany you can now see posters calling to join the resistance in Iraq if you know where to search for them. That would have been unthinkable after 9/11 when everyone was with the US.

I do not think that it is Bush's religious principles per se that are a problem for most people. The Vatican was one of the harshest critics of the Iraq war. What makes people suspicious is when someone says he wants to bring peace, justice, liberty and democracy and then he chooses as his means war, torture, restriction of civil rights and lies. I do not think any single politician has ever done as much harm to the reputation of your country. Pew opinion polls show that people ceased to believe in the American dream and even distrust your country all over the world, and that in my eyes is the really big problem. [16] Once people freed their countries from communism and peacefully tore the Berlin wall down because they believed they had a better choice. Nowadays most are disillusioned. In the Americas you see more and more support for leftist, even for nerds like Chavez, and in the Muslim world people turn to fanatism. We should try to show again that there are better choices. Get-back-world-respect 03:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US Army in its infinite wisdom teaches us just enough arabic. Forgive me for being short, I'm incredibly drunk right now. I'm leaving, I promise I'll write more later. Swatjester 09:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just wanted to say hello and tell you that I am looking forward to hear from you. Get-back-world-respect 21:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I was trying to go over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq. What a mess this has become. I appreciate your work I just think that the anon user had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat, that should take the wind out of the sails of bias allegations. Get-back-world-respect 22:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sockpuppet

no worries; thanks for the apology :) -csloat 23:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem I feel I owe it to you. While I disagree with your ideolgoguy (_(Sp) cause I'm drunk., I'm intellignet enough, at least i think, to diferentiate that from your edits. I think that is the mark of a wikipedian. Swatjester 09:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting?

On my Talk page, you posted:

Mr. Billion, please stop reverting the cleanup, consolidation, and shortening of the article. nothing is being deleted, just moved to sub-pages to get the article down to an appropriate size. Swatjester 16:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your meaning. I've only edited that article once in the past two weeks. --Mr. Billion 23:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Interesting. That's not waht the anonymous claimed. Next time I will verify before I accuse. You might want to remind him that you can speak for yourself, since he's implying you've been participating in the edit war. Swatjester 05:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No soldiers

I see that, for some reason, you removed my comment on the Iraq Invasion article:

Definitely NOT soldiersDawgknot 20:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you were/are a soldier. But my comment was a joke since both pookster and I are/were Marines. Wouldn't want to be mistaken for a doggie but rather a Devil Dog (or Dawg) as the case may be.

I'm curious why you removed my comment on the discussion page.Dawgknot 20:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

huh? I didn't remove anything? You sure? Swatjester 22:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shit, I see what happened. It got lost in an editing conflict when I was adding in the other part. Sorry, that was unintentional. Want me to put it back? Swatjester 22:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't hear a response so I put it back, and left a comment about doing so. Swatjester 15:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary links

I see you have been doing it also but keep an eye out for User:67.177.59.114 He is the one adding all of the DOD links to every military page so he can slip in the two links for the infantry web forums that do not belong anywhere except for the infantry page. Thanks fot the help--Looper5920 10:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd been deleting them where appropriate, for example on the Delta Force one, I left the defenselink and army.mil, and I think the infantry ones too, but on the SEALs page I only left defenselink and navy.mil. I probably should just delete all of them, but some users would probably disagree with that, and I'm already completely engaged on one front with 2003 Invasion of Iraq's RfC, protection, and anon harassment.

BTW I never knew you created all those Marine Air pages....good job!Swatjester 15:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Just a heads up, User:Get-back-world-respect is rounding up the lynch mob on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article.

Hi there, when trying to go over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq I saw it has become a big mess. If I see it correctly there was a conflict between an anon and others and now the page has been blocked. I think the anon had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties, in this case Pookster11, Swatjester, and Dawgknot who according to this comment all belong to the US military. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat, that should take the wind out of the sails of bias allegations. As I saw you also edited on that page, would you be willing to help out? Get-back-world-respect 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DTC 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just look above, I already told them. Get-back-world-respect 23:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't really care. My only problem was with the anon. I take a little offense to the idea however, GBWR, that I exclusively write the article. My presence on this page is here for two issues: I edited the "results" tab, and I stayed here to help combat the anon IP's vandalism. Swatjester 02:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I did not want to offend you. I just saw that the las 100 or so edits were made by you three guys and that the anon could easily turn against you that all three of you are easy to be accused of bias. I did not make any accusations myself, only left a note to pookster that I thougt he might think about what he was doing. Get-back-world-respect 03:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that my chief interest in the article now is not the content, but rather sub-article linking everything to reduce size. Pookster is all for that, hence my past support for him. Swatjester 10:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you say about the anon's accusations against pookster? Get-back-world-respect 02:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any new ones? or the original ones? The original accusations I feel are the anon trying to push his point on the the article. While I understand that he and pookster have different ideas on the article's content, he's hindering pooksters effort to shorten the article to fit wikipedia standards. That's unacceptable. He then commits multiple infractions of wikipedia policy, personally attacking anyone who disagrees, assuming bad faith, etc.....all while hiding behind his anonymity. That's even more unacceptable, and why I filed RfC and 3RR complaints against him. Did you know he has TWO 3RR complaints against him on the same list, one of which wasn't even filed by me! He violated the 3RR 17 times and more. I can no longer assume good faith on his edits, and his accusations against pookster are at the point of being a WP:POINT violation. Swatjester 11:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The anon had also filed a complaint for 3RR and deleting the NPOV tag as well as the discussion about it. I cannot see that as an anon trying to push a point. He showed violations of wiki rules. And I saw personal attacks of pookster, none of the anon. Get-back-world-respect 14:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure why you do not answer my questions but insist your messages shall stay on my talk page. Every user's talk page is his, and most users delete messages, including pookster. I cannot see IP's vandalism but I saw misbehaviour by pookster and a problem I solved by inviting others. Get-back-world-respect 01:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which questions am I not answering? Furthermore, not deleting others comments on their talk pages is considered good wikiquette. It may actually be policy, I'm not clear on that though. The IP's vandalism is well established by multiple users other than myself his RfC page. Let me find the link. Swatjester 02:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc link [17]. To wit:

"1. Can this user be treated as a vandal? Robert McClenon 19:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

2. In agreement and concur with editor McClenon that the user should be treated as a vandal. Gwyllgi 15:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)"

Also the users amazing 17RR violation is documented with diffs there. Is that good enough? Swatjester 03:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the reverts, however, it takes two to tango, and there was a content dispute. Deleting an NPOV tag for sure did not help. I cannot see anything else vandalist in the anon's behavious, but I asked you about the accusations against pookster, and you have a long paragraph above which you wrote you would answer to.

I did not make any unfair comments, I just wrote that someone had complained that three members of the US military were dominating the Iraq invasion article.

It is wiki policy that any user's pages are his, and as you choose to ignore parts of what I write to you I choose to delete your comments on my talk page and answer them here. I only guard what I regard important. Get-back-world-respect 03:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GetBackWorldRespect

Let me be very clear GetBackWorld Respect....if you post misrepresenting information about me on multiple users talk spaces, then delete my protest about it on your talk page, then delete my protest to your deletions, and finally delete my warning templates on your talk page, I WILL submit your name on the vandalism list. This is what we call "bad faith", and you're exemplifying it right now. By deleting my comments, you are misrepresenting me, and any comments about me, out of context. This is bad faith, and is against wikipedia policy. User talk pages do not belong to the owner. Only user pages do. As for the pookster accusations, I must have missed that. And as for myself, you specifically mentioned me in your comments as "Dominating" the article, which is patently untrue. Your retaliatory stance is not contributing to anything but further problems. Swatjester 03:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying this to your talk. Swatjester 03:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you feel offended by the word dominating. As the three of you made nearly all edits of the article and the talk page I regard it as correct. I do not see it as negative per se, just saw the anon's point. I did not write anything wrong to anyone, and my talk page is mine, period. Get-back-world-respect 03:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page is not yours. I notice you ironically deleted my post citing no less than 6 wikipedia policies and guidelines supporting my point. I warned you what's up. Deleting user talk warnings is vandalism as per policy, and I've cited you as such. This is my last edit for the night, carry on as you will. I'll return tomorrow evening. Swatjester 03:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline clearly says one should answer. I do, you do not. Later I choose to clear what I do not regard necessary any longer. Many do so, including pookster. I even write so at the top of my talk page. Deleting a warning that has no basis is just tidying up. Now please stop wasting our time. Get-back-world-respect 03:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone except you agreed that I have the full right to delete your messages when answered, please stop trolling at my page, Swatjester. [18] [19] [20] You are still welcome to answer my questions though. We had an interesting debate and I wonder why you stopped it for such childish games. Get-back-world-respect 14:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling? I was trying to reinsert my warning messages, as deleting them is a violation of policy. Swatjester 15:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three others tell you you are wrong, why don't you see it? Nlu, "an admin BTW", as you told me... Finlay McWalter is one, too. Get-back-world-respect 23:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay is the only one. Nlu told me to post it there. Swatjester 00:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, just read this: [21] (posted for the second time here now) Get-back-world-respect 01:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I've got more important things to worry about than your coverups, and I'm getting ready to archive this page. Swatjester 02:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice

My appologies. I do know 3RR and personally adhere to Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. However, if I exceeded 3RR I belief it was justified under WP:RPA policy especially given the nature of the personal attacks that I was removing. I really need some assistance in handling this better if it comes up again. ArbCom will probably be assigning mentors to the various editors on this page (soon I hope). I'd really appreciate your advice on handling resolving these conflicts better in the future. --Comaze 10:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally after reviewing your contribs (I reviewed Camridges first), I feel you're probably justified by RPA. However, if it were me, I'd leave the personal attacks up until AFTER arbitration is completed, THEN delete them, thus saving yourself a 3RR argument, bolstering your case at arbitration, AND once he's punished by arbcom, he can't revert your deletes, now can he? Anyway, I've decided to step in as an outside observer and put some wikismack down on policy violations. I could care less about the article...I fixed 1 typo and removed an ambiguous word. I know how it feels to be in a revert war, I just got out of one over at 2003 Invasion of Iraq. The best way to go about it is keep your hands clean, and then invoke policy. That's what I did, and it looks like my RfC against the anon who I was revert warring with will go through, his 3RR violations were reported, mine were dismissed as a WP:POINT etc. Personally, I think wikipedia needs stronger anti-vandalism features but nobody expects this to be a bastion of intellectualism or factual accuracy anyway (or so I hope to god) Swatjester 10:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh might I ask you change the topic of this to something that looks a little less accusatory for my talk page ;) Swatjester 10:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you're locked to do battle and the other players are not playing by the rules, sometimes you need to bring in the air support, but the air support takes 5 months to get approved... by this time your men are tired, the opponents have dug in, built bunkers in the mountains and change their names. First its RfC then RfM then ArbCom. I read on peer-review article that the new version of Wikipedia will include a peer-review marking system which basically marks articles that have passed Wikipedia standards for accuracy, NPOV, etc. A robust peer-review system would resolve many of these vandalism issues. I'm going to get more involved in wikipedia policy and back-end wiki development. I'll take your advice with keep my hands clean and simply just report any person attacks to arbcom and the mediator -- this is sound advice. --Comaze 11:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so wikipedia is going peer- review? thank god. I'm all for it, a) for pov reasons, b) for vandalism reasons and c) because I'm anti-anon editor, I don't think anons should be able to edit. and d) I'm deletionist, and I feel that too many inclusionists allow substandard articles to stay in wikipedia. Thanks for the info. Remember, don't let people get you down. and if all else fails with a user: WP:IAR.Swatjester 11:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan on getting more involved with wikipedia policy disputes and stuff, you might want to check out the useful links on my user page. Become familiar with the templates for warning users (warnings to users), templates for articles needing things (messages, policies to remember: Interesting policies; [WP:3RR]] WP:AGF WP:V WP:NPA WP:RPA WP:BALLS WP:IAR WP:CITE , and if things ever get too much (especially if a request for mediation or RfC won't help, and an ArbCom request guidelines aren't met) use WP:WQA. Don't forget the administrator notice boards for 3RR, Vandalism, and Incidents (not all that useful). Swatjester 11:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Thanks for the message, and I shall surely try to give my inputs. Firstly, let me read the earlier comments. OK. And, I wish you all the best in your aspiration to become an administrator - as it is said: this is not a big thing. --Bhadani 15:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can help mediate the proceedings and provide some second opinion to the dispute(s) at hand. Just drop me a message so I know where/when I'm needed.

Cheers, --Madchester 15:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the positive responses. I'm keenly aware its not a big deal. It does however, make things PLENTY easier and less frustrating. Swatjester 15:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NLP mediation

I can't say that I've gotten seriously into the issue you mentioned, but from the little I've read it's an issue being edited by seriously contentious people. As such, feelings are most likely very high-strung. In that case, there's gonna be all sorts of mud-flinging against everybody, including non-partisan outsiders. When that happens, it's more constructive to "take the crap" - so to speak, and not let yourself get seriously upset. Threatening people by saying "If both sides choose to continue to personally attack me [...] I'm warning you right now, I'll take every action available to me" will not really bring the issue anywhere.

As for the article-issue itself, I would try to tread very softly, and try to gently imply to NLP propents that they have to accept that certain people claim that NLP is pseudoscience, and to NLP detractors that they can't "taint" NLP by language usage, every claim has to be sourced - if someone says it's a cult, quote them, and don't use weasel words, etc.

But as I said, I haven't gotten seriously into the issue... —Gabbe 16:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, I was more interested in getting the parties to debate the issue with each other than your advice in the 2nd paragraph, but on second look it looks like good advice. Thanks. I haven't gotten int the issue either, cause I don't really know anything about NLP, I've just edited typos in the article. Swatjester 17:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing in the NLP page. However I would like to urge you to tread carefully. I had very bad experience with that page. I don't think the issue there is about whether NLP is pseudoscience or not. I think there are people exhibiting troll like attention seeking behaviour. So it is there intention to insult people to get them into edit wars and online flamming. I would urge you not to acknowledge or respond to any posting that deviates from the Wikiepedia guidelines. Unfortunately, current mediation is not working as there isn't any signs of consistent proactive mediation from Wikipedia admin. So, don't expect arcoms to take any action. It will be a waste of your time trying to argue with them. But feel free to delete all insulting postings from the talk page.--Dejakitty 17:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleting insulting postings from the talk page would be unadvisable IMHO due to eliminating context from quite a lot of things, and it would likely just be misconstrued as vandalism. I think mediation is failing because people are getting scared off. No scientist type will scare me off from this...I've experienced worse things in my life (see about me section in my user page). As for the rest.....well if you couldn't figure out from the posts above, I've asked a half dozen administrators to watch out for my mediation on this page, and assist me if possible. I hope that should be enough firepower....if not there's what, hundreds of admins on the list? At least one of them is probable to take some sort of action. Swatjester 17:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are right. But if you leave all the insults on the talk page, then the entire page will act as an gigantic flamme bait. Ideally, this should be done by the admin mediator consistently based on wikipedia guidelines. I don't think we need a lot of mediators. We just need one good mediator to take on a leadership role who is proactive tough and firm and is prepared to do the following:

1) tag the page with POV dispute
2) lock the page permanently
3) create a draft page so editors can edit
4) only admin can update the main page from draft page and only when the editors are cooperating
5) admin will not get involved in editing
6) strict endorsement of wikipedia posting policy, no personal attacks
7) all bad posting will be removed by admin regularly

If we can find an admin who is prepare to do this, I am sure the problem will go away in no time. Let me know if you find one. --Dejakitty 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those who flame on the talk page continuously will be warned, and if they don't stop, the proper process goes on them. 1) agreed. 2) No. That won't help the dispute, only incite tensions between those who don't like the frozen version. 3) You can already do that on your own. 4) Violation of wikipedia policy. 5) As a mediator, I won't get involved in the editing. 6) Yes. Working on it. 7) When appropriate.

I've got admins here to watch it. But one doesn't have to be an admin to be a mediator. Swatjester 18:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked admin to watch the page in the past but he/she ended up having an edit war with one of the editors and gave up the page soon afterwards. In theory anyone can engage in mediation, but I wouldn't advise you not to do so at this stage. Any attempt in mediation will very likely turn into troll food. That guy on the NLP page is very skillful at pushing boundaries and manipulate mediators and admins. --Dejakitty 18:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well thus far Bhagdani, Gabbe, Madchester, and KillerChihuahua are watching the page. While I don't know the first 3 well, KillerChihuahua has explicitly stated that he will not engage in the article nor does he have any interest too. If nobody tries to mediate, nobody will succeed. If I fail, so what. It's the internet. I'll go out tonight, have a beer, and go to sleep without caring about it. Swatjester 18:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

replied to your post on my talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to let VoiceofAll know that you have requested further admin backup as a matter of courteousy. He is an admin semi-involved in the NLP page, though he is not very active at the moment. If admins are too reluctant to deal with the situation, then I don't think there is anything we can do about it, apart from just be grateful that these are iternet trolls, not real-life terrorist. --Dejakitty 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view that as necessary. If the admins aren't needed, they won't be used. If he's not active, then he won't care. Regardless he'll figure it out. Swatjester 19:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying hello

Sup SJ. I was in 124th originally, before I went over to LRS. Did you know 1sgt Marks? He came over a year or so after me, is our 1sgt now. Also, I went to SOA for about a few weeks.Leppy 20:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1sg marks? nope. I'm in 3rd bat up in tallahassee. I've been under 1sg Nunn, 1sg simmons, and currently 1sg crisler in my time. Swatjester 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He (and I) was 1/124. I was assuming you were as well at some point.Leppy 06:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leppy hmm....any relation to the Rachel Lepara, or Christina Smith? Swatjester 20:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No relation. Although I went to high school with a christina smith I think, but it's too common of a name to really say.Leppy 06:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"STOP! Hammertime!"

least you tried. :) Oddly enough, since the Danes are the ones getting the bad press because of that cartoon nonsense ::insert eye roll here::, when I saw 'hammertime', instead of good ol' M.C. himself, I went off on some mental heathen tangents and came up with some utterly hilarious pictures in my head (think þórr and Mjollnir). Anyway, just thought I would let you know that at least *one* of us reading the page found your effort to be a very pleasant diversion from the babbling and howling. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh thanks. Nobody can bear ill will towards each other when MC Hammer is around. Swatjester 11:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The blinding flashes of light as the stage strobes and floods reflect off of his pants is enough to quieten the most rabid of mobs. ;) Take care.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your post

I replied on my talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your mediation

Hello, Swatjester. I apologize for the delay in my response. I'll be happy to take a look in on your mediation attempt, but I doubt that I'll be bale to assist all that much (my academic life has become very demanding over the past year or so). Good luck with your work: my understanding is that neuro-linguistic programming has a bit of a history of disagreements. – Clockwork Soul 19:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch

Thanks. I really shouldn't edit when I don't know what I am talking about. Broken Segue

Hey I don't know either, I was just making an educated guess based on grammar principles. Swatjester 15:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nah, I think you are right. They would write "6" not "six" if it was referencing a page number (wouldn't they?). Anyways, I'm not sure so I'll leave it unchanged. Broken Segue 22:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Normally you would write six, but for a page number you always give the numeric cardinal. Swatjester 23:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]