User talk:Swatjester/archive11

My Talk page

The 3RR block you placed on me is over. If I wish to remove old comments from my Talk page that is my prerogative. Do not revert changes I have made to my talk page. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize the block time had expired, apologies. That said, while attempting to whitewash your history is not against policy, it's certainly not something that reflects highly on you or your actions. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not an attempt to whitewash anything. Do not try to impugn my motives. You, as an admin, should know better than that. I received the message, the block has expired, hence message no longer relevant. I do not have to wear it like some sort of Scarlet Letter. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

With no indication of your motives, I can't be said to have been impugning them in the slightest. You deleted it after just over a day, clearly not archiving, and clearly with no need to do so for excessive space reasons. The obvious answer is an attempt to hide it. And that's fine, you can do that all you want, there is nothing against policy about it (well, technically there is but nothing that would apply to you in particular). However, I'm simply pointing out that it is not something that looks very good, and given your extremely defensive response to this, I would venture a guess that I've struck a nerve in the veracity of my remarks. In pointing out my admin status and what I should or shouldn't know better than to do, you should as well question why you felt it necessary to break 3RR in the first place, before questioning my knowledge. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You continue to say that was attempting to hide something, when I was not. That is the impugning part. I am not required to archive talk page and anyone who wants to look through the history of the page is free to do so. So yes, I am being defensive, just as you would be defensive if someone accused you of "beating your wife." And for the record, I did not "break 3RR in the first place." As you noted on Eleemosynary's talk page, the editor has as "extensive block history for editwarring" Reverting Eleemosynary's nonsense edits was not a violation of Wikipedia's arbitrary 3RR rule. I'm sure you disagree with that, but that really doesn't matter one iota. Seeing as you have not been an admin all that long, maybe you should take it a bit slower? — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil. I blocked the two of you and both of you clearly and egregiously violated the 3RR with flagrant disdain for it. I gave Eleemosynary a longer block because I'm well aware of his/her history and preference for edit warring and he/she expressed knowledge that she was breaking the 3RR but continued anyway, despite having been made well aware of its implications through several blocks. As for the comment on my admin status, I have been a wikipedia editor for two years, and an admin for nearly 6 months. Your advice is neither correct, nor welcome, and is quite insulting. I've no wish to further this conversation, please leave my talk page and do not return on this issue. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Further conversation reverted. As I mentioned, further conversation was not welcome. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I would venture a guess that I've struck a nerve in the veracity of my remarks. Otherwise I don't know why you would whitewash your talk page?! — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A significant difference between warning you not to continue the conversation, and then removing one line, than hiding a block. But as I said, further conversation is not welcome. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Potential legal threat made by the owner of stickycarpet.com/dam

Thanks for your advice and intervention. I'm glad I posted the "heads up" at WP:ANI. --A. B. ^(talk) 17:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Niggle on Wiki-Jargon

One of those tiny little annoyances that tend to add to the irritation level on Wikipedia is the way that people use jargon terms, and not always clearly. Some of the policy seems to be buried in the proverbial maze of twisted webpages.

At least OTRS is fairly easy to search for, and the page is pretty clear about what it is. But it's one of those little irritations that yopu don't link to the page, the first time you use the term.Zhochaka 07:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Xavier

While I was posting this to Xavier's page it became locked so i am postting it here.

I thought your initial 24 hour block was not unacceptable. I have a record of opposing indefinite blocks for people I believe are interested in making for a better encyclopedia (eg Vintagekits recently whose indef block was undonm after a couple of weeks and intense dialoguing) so its the indefinite bit I oppose, SqueakBox 21:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of instant jumps up to indefinite. That said, I'm also not a fan of coddling people who are highly likely to be indef blocked in the end anyway. I see this as the latter. You'll have to take up the indef block with Kuryhk. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Abuse and Remedy

See DAB's threat on my talk page which says I will lose if I opt for arbitration (against his abuses and reverts), and see my previous complaints in talk page of Moreschi (and Abecedare), and Moreschi's unsympathetuc answer yesternight that no Wikipedian will sympathise with me. I did not know issuing legal warning is illegal and illegal abuses is legal in Wiki, because I joined just one month ago. But it does not mean I am one month old, students guided by me decades ago are heads of departments and I am now "insane, silly, crackpot, &c" according to DAB. I have no intention of going to court, but DAB is making it impossible for me to work. Look at the first para of Rgveda, there was a wrong reference to Max Muller which I corrected, but DAB removed the whole thing just because I touched it. My action was perfect, but DAB has asked me many a times to leave Wiki and start my own web site ! Why he behaves like so ? What should I do ? I had issued the legal warning to draw attention of others, but no one is asking him to observe WP:CIVIL and not to remove well sourced contributions. -Vinay Jha 21:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The legal threat and warning was completely unacceptable. You are not allowed to issue those on Wikipedia. As for DAB, I'm certainly no friend of his, but I also don't really care either. Your dispute with them does not really concern me. You should take it up through dispute resolution. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

SwatJester, You may also want to look at these comments on my talk page and Vinay's talk page. Abecedare 21:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:TheInnocenceProject

TheInnocenceProject (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Strongly appears to be a sock of User:Jacksbernstein, who was indef-banned for legal threats on Richard Rossi, and who made identical edits. THF 22:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Quack quack. Yep, that's why I reverted him/her. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

I would like to notify you about a user who has revert your edits (removal of unsourced information) because he doe not "believe" the information provided by the sources, he has done this on numerous articles in order to fulfill his standard of POV, the user is Jingiby. 203.59.65.185 11:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 12:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Savoie

I think you're probably right to do this. I do think you ought to tell him though! --Dweller 13:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah... the header was a little obscure. Better now. You infinitely extended his block... --Dweller 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:A. B.

Thanks!^[1] --A. B. ^(talk) 19:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Bmedley Sutler

Greetings, I wanted to swing by and comment on the NPA warning you gave this user. I've already warned him a couple times (see his archives, he moves things there as soon as he's read them I guess). I personally feel it may be time to give him a timeout but I wanted to see what you thought, you may have seen my previous warnings and felt that a final one was in order. Or may not have seen them at all...which may (or may not) change how you feel about blocking. I feel he's been given plenty of time to reduce his aggressive editing style, so maybe it's time. I thought I get your thoughts. Though his behavior hasn't moderated today I hadn't planned on blocking during the day, but I also didn't see the edits you referred to. RxS 04:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

He's disruptive and well past due for a block. See [2] and [3] for examples. He's come up with so many different insulting names for Crockspot. And now he's pushing the Wikipedia right wing conspiracy, that we're all conspiring with Bush, as well as the office apparently. Anyway, I actually hadn't seen your warnings; irrelevant but it's yet more reason that I believe warnings should not be blanked, but that's neither here nore there. I didn't see them, so feel free to block if you choose. I'm also fine with it being a final warning. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I think if it was earlier in my part of the world I'd go ahead and make the block. But considering that it might be fairly high profile once I post at ANI, I may not be able to stay up long enough to take part in the discussion as the blocking admin. I do think he's due but the clock may not co-operate with me tonight. I may hang for a bit but otherwise I'll see what the new day brings. Needless to say I guess that I'd support you if you went ahead but I understand you not wanting to after he's done no further editing after your final warning....thanks for the imput. RxS 04:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't, only reason I'm not asleep right now is because my iPhone just crashed and I'm resyncing it, and frantically begging on facebook for lost phone numbers.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello I read this and don't know why I am being picked on when others who are picking on my are much insulting with NPA, but I will completely stop any postings that could be seen as an insult, so there is no need for a block or even thoughts of a block. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 05:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

About Alexander Donski

Dear Mister Swatjester if you have five minutes free time, pleace read Macedonism! Jingby 17:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I double Jingiby's concerns about the current state of the Donski article. The IP User coming from Perth, Australia (a sock of User:Frightner as he told me himself (see [4]) has removed a whole bunch of info and sources (I think it should be regarded as vandalism). He is clearly trying to set up Jingiby and as far as I see he's doing it allright - Jingiby is guilty for falling into this trap, but Frightner can edit from tons of different and relies on this to continue with his "quest". I'm not against protecting the page, but it should be protected in the state prior to Frightner's last reversion. --Laveol ^T 17:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Jingiby is canvassing, and trying to push a non-neutral POV. The current state of the article is the version that complies with our BLP concerns. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please show me my non-neutral POV! Jingby 18:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

this, revert warring on this, and again,blatant BLP violation which calls a person a revisionist historian, and including the text "In Bulgaria Donski is considered primarily a propagandist and polemist," with not sources. Your POV is so far from neutral I'd need a telescope to find it.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The sources about Donski are in Bulgarian's Wuikipedia article[5] and in his books. About the National Liberation War of Macedonia please, see now the last chanches in Talk page -Talk:National_Liberation_War_of_Macedonia#The_topic_is_locked.21 Jingby 19:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You insult those who hold different beliefs than you by calling them communist propogandists? Yeah that's not POV. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Bulgarian Wikipedia is not a valid source on its self actually. You're right though that these books are the real sources. The strangest thing is that Frightner had added most of the info he later removed. I'm not sure why he's being doing such things lately, but he should get his deal of attention, too. --Laveol ^T 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is all irrelevant, none of the information was sourced, and the article is a BLP issue. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Thank you for your "objectivity"! Jingby 05:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please explain

I never saw the post above this until now. I see now.

(I removed my name from Crockspots charges. What he says is not proven, All my posts were about Wiki-Scanner and nothing more and I think everyone even had the link)

Hello, Please explain your warning to me. I didn't insult Crockspots at all in the example you gave or include him in my charges of the Wiki-Scanner proven people editing Wikipedia for an agenda. Where is the NPA? Also, I was studying the warning templates last night because I had to use one. They go from 1 to 4. Its not supposed to start with 4, especially when there is no NPA insult. Could you please explain? I lack any idea why I got this warning! Thank you very much. Bmedley Sutler 05:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you referred to him as Cockpot. That's pretty much a direct insult. I have diffs above. As for the starting at 4, that is acceptable at admin discretion. We do not need to run the gamut from 1 to 4, when the user has shown to be a repeat offender. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

talk:Derek_Smart

It appears that someone with a bellsouth account didn't like your most recent edit on the talk page. :-) Regards, Bill Huffman 15:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112

Hi - earlier, you restored (diff) a warning that had been deleted by Levine2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I've moved it to the user's talk page (it had, apparently inadvertently, landed on his user page). Avb 02:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

comment request

Hi there, would you be so kind as to provide an indepenant neutral opinion of the image Construccionkaiserrick.jpg at the section of the same name on the talk page of Richmond Medical Center here please? Thank you very much as this may help to alleviate a current debate over its inclusion.Cholga^talK! 01:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Atlanta Wikimania bid IRC meeting

Hello, The second of likely a long series IRC meetings to coordinate the Atlanta Wikimania bid is being held tonight (Aug 24) at 7:00PM EST in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.com. If you can, it would be great if you could log on. If not, I am sure there will be plenty more times to discuss the bid :).--Cspurrier 19:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoops. I went straight from law school to dinner and missed it, sorry. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Terrorism

Greetings,

I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger - I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

You are being recruited by the Money and Politics Task Force, a collaborative project committed to ensuring that links between government officials and private-sector resources are accurately displayed in relevant entries. Join us!

Cyrusc 15:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania Atlanta bid teem meeting

Hello, The Wikimania Atlanta bid teem meeting is being held nightly on weekdays. This week meetings are starting at 9:30EDT and running for a few hours. If you can make it to the meeting (or at least pop in) that would be wonderful. Meetings are in the IRC channel #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.net.--Cspurrier 21:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania Atlanta bid team meeting

Hello, The Wikimania Atlanta bid team meeting is being held nightly on weekdays. This week meetings are starting at 9:30EDT and running for a few hours. If you can make it to the meeting (or at least pop in) that would be wonderful. Meetings are in the IRC channel #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.net.--Cspurrier 21:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

new policy

any thoughts about this? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Walther P22

Just letting you know we began talking about VT inclusion on the talk page, and I assumed you'd be interested. Cheers.--Dali-Llama 10:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Hainan Island Incident

Hi, I am very disappointed that an admin would erase everything without participating in the talk page. I agree that many POV edits were added and I have restored it back to the Aug 22nd version which everybody agreed on. I invite you to come and join the talk page of the article and share ideas. TheAsianGURU 18:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I am forced to not to change anymore or I will be blocked. How can you be an admin?!?! I am the only person there that can read Chinese, that can translate Chinese there on the article page. I agree with people that the CCTV stuff were Chinese propaganda, and that's why they are rightfully belong to "Aftermath section" to reflect the what Chinese people feel towards that issue. It's NOT a POV, it's NOT "sourced unreliably," just because you don't understand what it is doesn't mean it's unreliable. I wrote something you didn't like and you have to change it forcefully. This is NOT an enforcement of rules, this is abuse power by an admin. You bet I will challenge this. TheAsianGURU 03:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am an officer in the US Air Force. So was my father and one of his troops was on that plane (the lone airman in the picture on the article). I agree with AsianGURU on this issue that the Chinese "official" version of the events should be included. Without it, it does not give the perspective of the Chinese and the propaganda that has been thrust upon them. If you have specific ideas as to how the text could be altered to more adequately reflect that view (however inaccurate), please feel free to contribute. Until such a time as you have something better to go on, I strongly suggest backing off a little (this is not a threat, merely a request for a cooling off period). — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please reread the sentences he is inserting again. Two of them are unsourced, blatant propaganda with the "Citation needed" tag. The ones that ARE source come from a source that clearly does not meet our standards for reliable sources: WP:REDFLAG, WP:SELFPUB, WP:RS--Extremist Sources etc. The fact is, the source he is using is a well known propaganda tool. Please see WP:NPOV, specifically at WP:UNDUE that states "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source." The Chinese government is the only group saying that it was some grand conspiracy theory by the US. CNN, NBC, BBC, all the major news outlets say differently. You simply cannot regard a communist state run propaganda outlet as a reliable source, and try to argue it as fact. I'll build a compromise sentence, one that gives the proper minimal amount of weight to the chinese view. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say this?! I did NOT add those links because I believe the Chinese State Run Propaganda is a reliable source. I added them because I wanted to reflect that the Chinese people have a different takes on this issue and they are the results of the propaganda. I also added my comments on the articles talk page, please visit there for more information. TheAsianGURU 17:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's not a reliable source, then it cannot be added. How much more simple can I make it? You even just admitted above that it was not a reliable source. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

...This is getting really long, but allow me to try to put it this way --- The Chinese people don't get western reliable source (like cnn, bbc, msnbc...) so they watch CCTV all the time and that's why they think differently. When you talk to Chinese people about this issue, they will say things that's very different from what you & I & everybody else in the western world thinks. Now I don't agree with their POV, but shouldn't we be adding them in to let people know that a random Chinese person would not agree with the content of this English version of this article and it's the direct result of CCTV's Propaganda. TheAsianGURU 18:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

But there's a huge step there to assume that ALL chinese people believe the CCTV version. I'd venture to guess there are a large number who do not. That's the problem, your sentence was saying in effect "All chinese people believe this", when in fact only "some chinese people believe this", and we actually do not have a source that says how many. If there was a poll that says 59% of chinese people believe this, then we'd be able to say that. But we don't have one, so there's nothing to be said. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Solution Proposal

Since we clearly disagree on most of the issues, I sent invitation to BQZip01 to see if he can come up with something that we can both agree on. TheAsianGURU 19:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, I'm amenable to this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The name on Bmedley Sutler's talk page...

...looks like it was in reference to this user, so it probably doesn't need to be oversighted. You did the right thing by removing it since you weren't sure, though. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah. That makes sense. I'll go revert that part if it hasn't happened yet.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Jingiby

Hey Swatjester, I would just like to bring to your attention, a comment Jigiby posted on Lantonov's talk page here. The following is a rough translation of the comment:

“ Antonov, there is my favourite administrator, who defended Frightner and because of him, he blocked me for a week. Now on the first day (of unblock) he is threatening me with a 1-month block. He is naturally biased and even erases portions of information for which there was a consensus. Be that as it may, he has locked the entire article. As for me, I do not care to discuss (the matter) because I was accused of being biased, take a look if you have the opportunity from time to time! With regards! ”

There are many occasions where Jingiby has tried to engage other Bulgarian Wikipedians in ethnic debates on articles and to do his 'dirty work' if you will. Also, posting comments in Bulgarians especially to avoid consequences for calling an administrator "biased" is quite childish. Regards. Frightner 12:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also just noticed that he replaced his talk page with "Go home!", a implication (I think) for your multiple warnings. Frightner 12:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Swatjester. Thank you for intervening in National Liberation War of Macedonia. I want to give you a short resume about the things that are going on there. User called Jigiby, who is warned several times on vandalism and non-ethical behavior is constantly changing this (an many other Macedonian articles). As you know in whole Europe during WW2, there were collaborationists that were helping the Nazis. In WW2 Macedonia was occupied by the Bulgarians, and only very few pro-Bulgarian Macedonians were sympathizing the Bulgarian occupationists. The majority of the Macedonians (together with their American and Soviet allies) were fighting against the German, Italian and Bulgarian fascist ocupationists. Jigiby on the other hand is imputing links to Bulgarian pro-Nazi sites and Bulgarian fascist literature, and thus IS TRYING TO PRESENT BULGARIA'S OCCUPATION OF MACEDONIA DURING WW2 AS A "LIBERATION". Jigiby is also qualifying pro-Bulgarian Nazi collaborationists as Macedonian heroes, and is neglecting Macedonian Partisans who were fighting on the side of the Allies. Please help !!! Revizionist 15:11, 07 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into the allegations, but no offense Frightner, but I don't trust anyone's translations in other languages (not meant personally at you). Jingiby strikes me as the person who will dig his own grave without anyone else's help. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Frightner, given your harassment history and indefinite block, forgive me if I'm extra dubious of your statement. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Swatjester. I think, it is not the best choice to trust these people! I read, you have been studied law. Before to take any decicion you have to now the problem from the both sides! Jingby 13:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, yes I have "harassed" other Wikipedians, and I openly admit that, but you need to consider that they were only Bulgarian and Greek users who constantly push POV on Macedonia related articles which Jingiby has done and is doing constantly. My harassment history has nothing to do with me making things up. As for my translation, I swear that it is 100% legit, you may even use an online translator if you wish to investigate. You can see that Jingiby's above comment is aimed at distracting you from considering my claim. Regards. Frightner 15:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of policy I do not regard claims from banned users. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Frightner evading his ban

If you see a IP address you suspect might be Frightner (203.59.*.*), you can add it to this list and undo all of the edits of that user. Per Wikipedia:Banning policy he is no longer allowed to edit in any way, including talk pages and so on. Then you can let either User:AnonEMouse or User:Neil who are admins and are aware of the case. Thanks. Jingby 18:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC) :(personal attack removed) Frightner 19:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of his ban. I'm not taking his comments into any consideration. I think AnonEMouse and Neil have both edited my talk page at one point or another; there's a pretty good chance it's already on their watchlist. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes but I am not banned, and I agree totally with User:Frightner. User Jingby is constantly attacking the article National Liberation War of Macedonia, and by imputing links to Bulgarian pro-Nazi sites and Bulgarian fascist literature, he is trying to present Bulgaria's occupation of Macedonia during WW2 as a "liberation". He also qualifies pro-Bulgarian Nazi collaborationists as Macedonian heroes, and is neglecting Macedonian Partisans who were fighting on the side of the Allies. So User:Frightner was only fighting against this organized vandalism. In the regulations about the Three-revert rule it is normatively stated that if one is constantly vandalising an article, then you have the right to cross the Three-revert rule and revert the vandalizing. That's why I think that User:Frightner is not guilty. Frightner has made so many contributions. And Jungby has created nothing else except vandalizing and distortion of history. Thanks in advance. User:Revizionist 11:30, 08 September 2007 (UTC)

I know Jingiby is pushing a POV. That's the reason I warned him int he first place. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

AR-15

The AR-15 is one of the funnest rifles I've ever shot. They are downright pleasurable to shoot. Recoil is soft, nice trigger pull, satisfying, and easy to keep on shooting. Wish I could see your picture, but viewing requires forum membership. Alyeska 02:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice looking model. M4 style, forward rails and flattop receiver. Just get a nice scope. I have the AimPoint M68 series myself. Alyeska 05:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I had an Aimpoint CompM M68 on my M16, but I honestly wasn't much of a fan. I really like the Eotech 510 holosight series. But I also want an ACOG (I'm thinking like a TA 31). I know that trijicon makes a combo ACOG/Holo, but I'm not sure the Holosight on it is big enough for me.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The ACOGs are nightmarishly expensive. I want the standard Trijicon ACOG, but it just breaks the bank. Holo sights rub me wrong so I stick with the M68. Eventualy my M68 is going over to my Beretta Cx4 while the AR gets the ACOG. Still, your sights are excellent. Alyeska 05:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if I get the summer job I want, I should be able to afford a holo sight and a trijicon. But that's a way off.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Elections

Thank you for your support. It was much appreciated. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Unblock

Please unblock: mw93 im sorry for getting into that thing with sow23. i thought it was vandalism but I was wrong. now i know what vandalism is. I wont attack anyone like that again. so please unblock me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.109.18 (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior does not warrant unblocking at this time. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Revizionist

I am having concerns this user has been uploading copyrighted images with inappropriate licences. Can you please look into this matter? For example this one and this one do not mention at all their source. Thanks. Mr. Neutron 17:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I will look into it. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And I am having concerns that User: Mr. Neutron fails to 'assume good faith' and never warned User: Revizionist of the copyright issues on his talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Revizionist , but instead reports him in bad faith, while at the same time engaging in changing exclusively Macedonia-related articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mr._Neutron to his own standards of accuracy and semantics, which are disputed by many people on those articles, few of which are ongoing edit wars. thank you Capricornis 23:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to look into either yet. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify to Capricornis, I am not raising any questions about copyright or so, just requested someone look into it as it is obviously a problem. As far as your other insinuations, I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. Mr. Neutron 00:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify to Mr. Neutron, insinuation is something not supported by facts, however I provided links to facts that confirm my statements. thank you Capricornis 00:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point I am not reporting him, I am requesting clarification. And Revizionist did not even create the template in question. Mr. Neutron 00:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

All I was suggesting was that you could have discussed it first with User: Revizionist. The wording of your initial request was not flattery also. -regards Capricornis 02:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Walther P22

To reiterate what I wrote on the Talk page: Shortly after the Virginia Tech Massacre, there was a big debate on this page about whether to include mention of the massacre at this article. You can read about it in this article's discussion page archive. The debate boiled down to these opposing viewpoint:

• Articles about the guns used in the Columbine shooting and the guns used to kill JFK and President McKinley mention those people's deaths. Why not mention it here?
• The gun itself had nothing to do with the VT Massacre -- it just happened to be the tool the shooter used. Therefore, the gun shouldn't be mentioned in this article.

I, personally, thought that the Walther deserved mentioning here because it was used in the deadlist shooting in United States history, but I was convinced by argument not to include it. These arguments, led by Yaf (whom I respect very much) said that it should be mentioned only if some kind of gun legislation or other change results from the VT massacre. Yaf wrote, "The Columbine Massacre led to directly banning the Tec-9, by name, in the Assault Weapons Ban, and the weapon received considerable media and legislative attention as a result of Columbine... As the P22 has not received any notable media attention yet, nor legislative attention by Congress, the consensus reached in the discussion of the Beretta CX4 Storm should apply here. Namely, if the P22 receives considerable media attention as a result of the VT shootings, then mention of the shootings in the P22 article should be added in a few months." What did receive media attention is that the VT shooter purchased ammunition for is P22 from eBay, and as a result, eBay stopped selling ammunition. By Yaf's criteria, and the criteria agreed to in the conensus on the Talk archive page, eBay's banning of ammo sales belongs in this article because it occurrec as a direct result of the use of the P22 in the VT Tech massacre. This compromise was reached earlier, and I think we should abide by it.Griot 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That was not the consensus. There was no consensus that the shooting was to be included on the Walther P22 page. There was a clear consensus that the ebay story did NOT belong on th Walther P22 page. All of a sudden, out of the blue, you come in and start making the change? That's not consensus in the slightest. Yaf's opinion is not the consensus opinion, despite your respect for him, and it is not controlling as to whether it is included. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania Atlanta

Hello, Thank you for volunteering to be a part of the Atlanta Wikimaina bid southeast team. We are holding meetings weekdays at 7:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see m:Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. If you are able to make it, that would be great.

We now also have Google group for coordinating this bid. To get updates on the bid and our progress, please join the Google Groups mailing list at Google Groups wikimania-atlanta.

There is also a group on the social networking site Facebook in which interested parties can express their support for the bid.

If you do not wish to continue to receive these notifications about the bid or would rather they go to a talk page on a different project please change m: Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/Notify_list--Cspurrier 21:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not impressed

Swatjester, you were the only person whose conduct really surprised me during the latest incident. I believed in your good judgment throughout the Miskin case, but the latest remarks were really beyond the pale. My trust in your administrative abilities has been taken away. Bye, Ghirla^-трёп- 00:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No sane person would argue that two page moves are identical to two incidents of text removal and that, taken together, that would constitute a 3RR violation. I have never seen this disingenuous argument made before. Since such a report would have no chance of being taken seriously on the proper venue (WP:AN3), it was "prepared" and "submitted" outside Wikipedia. Such attempts to sidestep our procedures are highly provocative and inappropriate. Suva's two previous attempts at "IRC collaboration" were deleted per WP:SNOW, and his third outing does not strike me as particularly convincing. Let me remind a finding from the Miskin case: "Administrators should usually use on-wiki channels of discussion before blocking long-standing contributors with a substantial history of valid contributions". Your failure to honour this advice, in the face of ArbCom's ruling on your own infraction, is a no-brainer for me. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

National Liberation War of Macedonia and User:IvanStario

I see you have blocked this user for one week for repeated moves of the above page. He has requested an unblock, stating that he never read policy. I looked at the case and it seems to me that it might be a case of newbie mistakes, however I also understand the POV problem (the term "struggle" for example) I just told the user you would take a look in. If you agree with the newbie mistake concept a week might be a bit excessive I thought, but you are the blocking admin not me, I'm not being critical of your decision :) I'm behind you whatever, just thought the user would appreciate your look in. Regards SGGH ^speak! 21:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

See my response on his talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Userpage

Goodness, you copied my userpage back in June, and I just now noticed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I actually got it from a few different sources, mostly from you, partially from Miranda. It's been sitting around on User:SierraSix for some time when I was attempting to change my username to that (I still haven't 100% decided if I'm going to change it or not.) I liked parts of the old one, but it was way too much blue for me.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, where's that attribution, on the talk page dear SWATJester? If you want a cool/awesome userpage, look at Example's. Miranda 02:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean I could recreate a page based on a military motif, (i.e. American Flag, move the GNU pics to commons for your personal gallery, etc.) Miranda 03:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It was around there somewhere....I'm 99% sure I added it in somewhere....hmm. As for a military page, nah, I might take you up on that later, but for the moment I like how my userpage is set up. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

here it was, it must have gotten lost in my testings. I put it back. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I am such a grammar bitch, but could you please change #10

  # This page and its transcluded parent courtesy of User:Miranda.

to

  # This page's formatting is courtesy of Miranda.

anyway, you could say "the patent legalese represents the transfer of present property under de facto clause (CC-BY-SA 3.0) with permission granted by Miranda," but that would be too much for right now :-D. Talk to you soon. Miranda 08:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed a little bit, but for CC-BY-SA reasons, it needs to state attribution for both the header page and the talk page.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I changed the formatting on your meta page? Anymore? :-P Miranda 03:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Newp, thanks. Aren't you on wikibreak? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am trying so hard...to do so...:-( I think someone might have to enlist me into Wikiholics Anonymous. :-P Miranda 06:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel you. After several days work on my memo, I began my final push to finish it (well, to finish the draft #1 version of it) tonight. I started about 8pm and planned to be done by midnight. It's 3am and I just finished it. Stupid distractions. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Ooh, did I see an article that you were quoted in the W.P. in your announcement? I can't see it due to teh evil blue link. Congrats. Everyone seems busy now, sadly. Have a good day. :-D M.^(er) 17:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Your MediaDefender article protection was not needed

You protected the MediaDefender article because an edit war was gong on even though there is no edit war. We were having a nice rational and fairly peaceful discussion on the talk page, before changing anything on the article page. The one bone of contention (which is being discussed on the talk page) hasn't been changed on the article page at all

As pointed out on the talk page, under the Full Protection section

• "There's only been one revert in the last 36 hours, which doesn't make an edit war"
• "The only dispute seems to be over one line in the article, and no one has changed it while the discussion has been going on"
• "I agree. What edit war? All I see is that JzG made a few reverts because he says to cite a "reliable source"

Please could you come back and put the page back to the semi protection it was already on Neververyvery 02:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No. See talk. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Sunset Elementary School - Deleted/Please restore content

• Sunset Elementary School - I created this page before the summer 2007, and I just realized there was a debate and it was deleted. There is a copyvio on it, I am the creator of the website referenced as copyright violation as well (www.pangeasunset.net) and would not mind mentioning it in the Sunset entry in Wikipedia. Sunset is Notable due to its: (1) being the first US International Studies Program school with 3 different governments (Spain, France, and Germany)-students study US curriculum as well as same grade in target country, plus global curriculum; (2) Blue Ribbon School of Excellence, (3) Magnet Award school, (4) Exchange programs with sister schools in those countries; (5) Hewlett-Packard and Best Buy grants awarded, among many other mertis and awards. Thank you for restoring the content. Seedvp 15:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikimaina Atlanta meeting

We will be holding a meeting tonight at 9:30pm EDT in #wikimania-atlanta on irc.freenode.org. For more information about IRC see m:Wikimania_2008/Bids/Atlanta/IRC. Please try to be at this meeting as it is one of the last ones before bidding ends and we still have lots that need to be discussed. --Cspurrier 19:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Anna Wilding

Hi there, as closing Admin for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anna_Wilding can I ask if you WP:SALTed it as requested in the discussion? I don't know if salting appears in the logs or not. Thanks — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 03:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's salted. That's nothing to do with the deletion debate though, I salted it in response to the legal threats. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. KP Botany 05:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Steven Plaut

Hi. Can you please explain what this edit summary means, and why you have removed the information about Plaut's abusive behaviour. This is well-documented, and relevant to his Wikipedia entry. Thanks. RolandR 08:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It is documented poorly, and is removed in response to a complaint to the WMF's support desk. Beyond that, I cannot say more due to confidentiality reasons. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Atala T

Hello Swatjester, someone has taged my article on Atala T and said it might be deleted because something about it doesnt have enough company recorces, This would be about the 4th or 5th article that might get deleted and I hope it does not. I would hate for history to repeat its self, can you plese look over the article since you have more experacne than I do? Thanks.

Atala T

--Muriness 23:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.}

Muriness, you should provide some sources to news articles that have talked about Atala T. That will go a long way to keeping it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Atala T

The bad thing is, They dont have any newspaper articles or anything because they are not really known in the internet world. If anything by them making more products availible such as the Atala T Toolbar , thet would be more known to the public. is there any other way I can save the article?

--Muriness 00:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. If they're not known yet, then they probably don't qualify. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater USA & Erik Prince

Can you do me a favor and add Blackwater USA and Erik Prince to your watch list? Given recent news coverage, but have been subject to significant vandalism. As someone who has written about Blackwater a lot in the past and is known to upper management, I feel weird playing guardian angel to Erik Prince's entry, and I think that Blackwater's management would feel similarly. I do not have a conflict of interest as such, but am uncomfortable with the current situation. --Pleasantville 00:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll do my best. I don't see any reason why you couldn't though. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Second that, if its clear vandalism there can be no question of COI issues, especially as you're quite open about your relationship. If anything questionable comes up, ping me (or ping Swat, heck, he's only a law student so I'm sure he has more free time than I, heh) Ahem. Or post on WP:RFPP if the vandalism gets bad. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. Blackwater knows who I am. Their VP and their legal counsel once came up to me at a conference and said if I ever had any questions, I should get in touch, and handed me business cards. But regardless of my opinions on the private military industry, people making fun of the death of Prince's wife by cancer is really over the top. In any case, I will continue to monitor. --Pleasantville 01:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty sick.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

hello

I appreciated your back up on the recent CSN matter - obviously, I think your take was correct. Nice to meet you Tvoz |talk 04:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My problems with Ferrylodge went back to the RFC. I supported his banning before the Fred Thompson deal. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't been aware of all of that until now - reading it, I can see why the response to the CSN was so rapid. Tvoz |talk 09:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but Banno is still complaining about it, on Ferrylodge's talk page, which makes no sense to me. First he complained that FM didn't close the discussion; now he's complaining it was closed too soon. He states he thinks FL would have been banned no matter how long it went on, but thinks it should have gone on longer. And he chose to place his complaints on Ferrylodge's talk page, where I don't see how it can possibly do any good - I'm confused and perplexed at this line of reasoning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Re: Atala T

Thats not really fair because you know I worked hard on the artice and with the images, You know what i went through just to have my article on here and again someone is threttening to remove it. If they remove my article then I think Im not going to re make anymore because this doesnt make sense, and then they tell you dont get offensed if they delete it. I dont know what to do

--Muriness 04:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I know you worked hard. Not everything is meant for Wikipedia though. I'm not sure what to tell you. If you can find some sources around there about Atala T, you might have better luck. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Re: Re: Atala T

I dont know anything on the internet about Atala T but I think the CEO put a download of the Toolbar on upload.com . The reason how I know everything about Atala T is because I know the CEO personaly, and I have left links to the website and everything so they cant say that it is irrelivant. I posted on the deletion page so im waiting to hear what they have to say, Can you please back me up on the page please because like you stated before, you know I worked hard and I even improved on my adittude? the link is [[6]]

--Muriness 23:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Call of duty 4 source

Im confused on how www.fourzerotwo.com is not a relible source. Its the Blog of Robert bowlding, head community relation manager for Infinity ward. He an offcial source for most Call of duty 4 news. ForeverDEAD 00:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. It's not on the COD:4 website. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright i understand, I personaly think that the relible sources should make an exeption with cases like this but alas i dont make polocies ForeverDEAD 00:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: No

I don't know who you think you are, but it is highly unconstructive to drop a templated user warning on a longstanding admin's page for a good faith (and correct) edit. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, a couple of things.

• Admin or not, I fail to see why a templated responce would be any less "unconstructive" than me sitting here and typing the same thing out manually. The alternative would for me to have not left a message for you at all.
• Although I am not making a bad faith assumption here, I would warn you that perhaps, as the nominator of the AfD, that it would be best leaving the Rescue Template alone until after your AfD is complete. Otherwise you may be accused of a Conflict of Interest.
• I have reworded the Template to be less "demanding"
• If you have further issues with the template, I suggest you note then on the template talk page. - Fosnez 05:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• We have a very strong essay called "Don't template the regulars". Instead of leaving a warning in the first place, you should have talked about it, perhaps asked me why?

• I changed the entire template. It has nothing to do with my individual AfD. If that's what you think the "conflict of interest" policy means, you need to reread the policy.

• You did not reword it. You simply reverted it.

• I'm posting at AN/I. This is ridiculous. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection of MediaDefender

Re: protection of MediaDefender, can you at least provide a basic explanation of the issue with the OTRS ticket? And why full protection was needed and not semi-protection? It seems rather nontransparent and mysterious at this point, when this issue is breaking very quickly. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The page was protected based on an edit war. I counted at least 4 reversions within the past 50 edits, all of which in the past 24 hours. As for the OTRS ticket, at this time I can't provide any further information, until I hear back from the originator of the ticket. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. I'm not keen to unprotect the article since I do respect your experience and judgement on this for now. Though my old school thinking would make me more apt to protect if it's 4 reverts in one hour, rather than 24 hours. Some pause in figuring out what sources to trust or not trust is not a bad idea. There is still the very small question of whether the e-mails are authentic at all, but every indication seems to point to "absolutely" since the leakers were able to get passwords to phone conferences and servers. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's my logic too. I don't mean this anything near as a permanent full-protect. I'll go back and make sure that I put a VERY short expiration on it (like, 24 hours). I mean this to be "pushing the pause button" so we can get more administrator eyes on the article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the MediaDefender article really semi protected because of vandalism? Neververyvery 05:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The MediaDefender article is semi protected with a label stating that the reason for the protection is vandalism. The article has never been vandalized. Could you please put the real reason for the protection or unprotect it. Thanks Neververyvery 13:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is not ready for unprotection. As for the label, we don't have an automatic label for "article protected because IP's are pushing POV", and the bots get angry when there is a protected article with no label on it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you wouldn't want [7] the list of IP addresses I was referring to. I've rephrased my question without the list below.

There's a list of all the IPs' edit's since the email leak on the Media Defender Talk page Talk:MediaDefender#Why_is_this_page_still_semi_protected.3F and here [8]. As you can see (don't take my word for it), IP's aren't really pushing a point of view. The IP's tend to be adding information that damages and is negative towards Media Defender, but that's only because the leaks are damaging

So far the page has been protected because of an edit war that wasn't happening (which was nearly immediately changed to an OTRS reason) and vandalism (which is really IP's pushing POV). Apart from the OTRS reason, they don't seem to be supported by the edits. Would you be prepared to discuss the protection on the talk page (bottom)? Neververyvery 07:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said before. The main reason is for the OTRS ticket. It's also a high profile news item right now, and despite what the protection policy states, we regularly do protect pages in which we anticipate a swarm of vandalism; for instance, the release of Halo 3 tomorrow night. Beyond that, there is a credible threat that MediaDefender employees in violation of the conflict of interest guidelines, will disruptively edit the article. Keep in mind that semi-protection does not just stop IP's, it also stops newly created accounts. Removing the protection would be too dangerous at this time. I cannot recommend doing so. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I understand how it works now. Neververyvery 00:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not really true, and unfortunately I just can't lie so I've had to strike it through. I don't find your reasons for semi protection consistent or justified (except for the OTRS, which isn't open to scrutiny). I do understand that you aren't willing to unprotect it though and appreciate that you've made that clear Neververyvery 01:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made it abundantly clear. If you can't understand the reasons, which are indeed consistent with our policies, you should consider editing a different article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood slightly there, although it's possible I didn't phrase it well. I can understand your reasons perfectly, they're not difficult concepts to follow. I just don't think they're consistent (i.e. they've changed [and now come full circle back the OTRS] each time they've been challenged) or justified (i.e are against policy or unsupported by the evidence). In any case I'll happily drop it as a) apparently I can't challenge your protection any further than I have and b) if you're attacking my ability to understand rather than the addressing the points it's likely discussion isn't going to help any further Neververyvery 00:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you delete old accounts

Sorry to bother you again but before i got serioes into wikipedia i made an old account to vandalism protected pages. I decided to start fresh and make this one and as you can see i dont like vandalsim anymore. Could you please delete the user =GAYlordpoor as its my old account. ForeverDEAD 20:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't. Technically I don't have the ability to do that. Just let it sit there. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks ForeverDEAD 20:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Re:Hey there

I've responded to your concerns on my talk page. --Iamunknown 05:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My User Page

We have obviously had our differences, and I have been monitoring your edits, as you have obviously been monitoring mine. In future, please do not edit my user page - it is rather un-civil. In fact, if you feel that there is something there you would like me to address it would be polite for your to speak to me about it on my talk page first, before you go editing my user page. After all, editing pages and leaving only edit comments as an explination is how this whole thing got started. My linking to your contribution is not a personal attack, and neither is the section of my user page. - Fosnez 13:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your user page does not give you the right to maintain incivility. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And precisely what about my link was incivil? Fosnez 20:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It implies that I am a contributor who needs to be "watched". It's incivil and it promotes wikistalking. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is where we will have agree to disagree, being able to watch other users contributions is a feature of wikipedia, and although it can be abused, it can also be used for good. Fosnez 22:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Jena Six help

Hey, since you're an admin, could you please talk to Qworty and ask him to calm down? He's suddenly started editing like he has his own agenda, and is really starting to get nasty on the talk pages against people who disagree with him. Thanks. Ophois 06:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed on the talk page. I can't tonight unfortunately, I need to be up in about 4 hours. I will, however, keep this open and take a look at it during the day tomorrow. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Right now he's even started removing people's discussion-page comments that disagree with him.Ophois 15:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Lee Riches

Hi. :) I'm contacting you about the biography of the above individual. Subsequent to a comment at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jonathan_Lee_Riches, I have attempted to create a clean, BLP-vio free article about this individual. I have it on watch, in case any editors attempt to restore the material contained in the deleted version. Since you had deleted the article, and for obviously good reason, I wanted to let you know and invite you to take a look at the current version if you feel so moved. :) Given the attention on this gentleman and the fact that Wikipedia's article on him is repeatedly named in the press that I found, I feel pretty strongly that the article must be able to withstand strictest scrutiny. Thanks, and please let me know if you feel it goes astray. --Moonriddengirl 18:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks better now. I think it could probably survive AFD. I personally don't think it's worth including....there are plenty of people who make ridiculous pro se in forma pauperis lawsuits for ridiculous amounts. If it gets particularly bad, as a protection to all involved it needs to be fixed. As of right now, it appears fine. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Space trade

Hi! Can you please explain the deletion of this article Space trade without discussion? The prevous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space trade was resulted in that the prevous version to be deleted and article's contents should be moved there from another place in userspace which had been done.--79.120.26.179 05:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Perverted Justice

Hi Swatjester. I reverted your reversion of my reversion on the Perverted Justice talk page. Per official policy at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." The accusation I reverted is clearly unsourced and obviously contentious. Policy is clear that it must be removed. Thanks for your understanding. Powers ^T 13:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. WP:BLP overrides the other policies, if I recall correctly. The problem is that even if the IP user didn't come out and state the accusation as fact, the implication causes the same harm. Nonetheless, I will place the issue at the noticeboard for further input. Powers ^T 13:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

probably a good idea. While I'm normally all for things being removed under BLP, when they're talk page opinions and not assertions of fact, I find myself leaning towards viewing it as a chilling of speech, which is a reason that not even WP:RPA is technically enforceable. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

hi

after reverting an article to a revision of a couple of months ago, please make sure that you did not miss the minor edits. As the case in [9], cheers,--Pejman47 20:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I figure those can easily be redone, it's more important that the vandalism be reverted. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Swatjester, it is posible to remove the erased images from the article about National Liberation War of Macedonia? Regards! Jingby 09:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Blackwater revision

Hi Swatjester, the Blackwater addition was per the article Talk page. Is the problem the wording or the source? I just wanted to get them in as requested. • Lawrence Cohen 15:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is per the edit summary description. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 15:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

per the wording "some" needs to be "one" unless more than one location has said that. Also the only thing I saw on the talk page was you offering to include it, and meeting with some resistance. It clearly violates our No undue weight policy and is worded inflammatory. Find a better quote to add, but honestly I don't think that page needs more quotes or more criticism; at some point you're just piling on and you run afoul of Undue Weight. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Haizum had complained about the lack of right-leaning sources. We could add other quotes from, for example the NRO online, etc. but I think Swatjester is basically correct here and that shifts in the conservative POV are hard to pin down as any kind of collective voice, since that shift is in process. --Pleasantville 16:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Hi, regarding this edit, I would just like to point out that notability is not inherited. Mixtapes are not notable unless they have charted, had critical reviews, sales etc etc. Thanks --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

So, explain why we allow "The third studio album from (insert artist here)" pages. Try again. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

How

How can I say it concisely? Do you not want to atleast see the sources? Its not a theory and the move was never contested, contrary to what you said. Again, please be more objective in the future and do not jump to conclusions. I have been very busy lately and it seems as though some are taking advantage of that to have the administrators undo a lot of things. Again, as I have continuously stated, if I am not available on Wikipedia, anyone can e-mail me regarding such issues, but please do not make unilateral moves. I do not have the time that other users have at this time. If you like, I can spend some time gathering more sources for your (but only if you are willing to look at them!). Also, please keep an eye out for POV and OR insertions or removals. Thanks.Hajji Piruz 21:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

ME MAKE UNILATERAL MOVES? You are the only one who has done so. I reverted you. Don't come back to my page again, I'll be counting the days until you are banned. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, SWAT. I was asked by an Iranian editor to review the Hajji Piruz's block. I agree that Hajji's has been unnecessary combative and deserved a block. On the other hand I am not sure there was a 1RR violation on Iranian theory regarding the origin of the Azerbaijanis since consecutive reverts counts as a single one revert and all of his earlier edits probably not qualified as reverts. At any rate Hajji had reasons to believe in good faith that he was acting properly. A one month block of a productive contributor for a good faith actions looks excessive for me. Is it possible to shorten the block? Alex Bakharev 00:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the sheer amount of tendentious editing that Hajji Piruz has been involved with on the topic, (How many Arbitration's now?) I do not think that would be appropriate, especially given the extremely recent block he received. I do not have any reason to believe that he was acting in good faith by making a clearly POV change without discussion and then taking a combative tone about it. Furthermore, you'll note that he reverted on the page move, AND he reverted on the textual edits. You don't need to revert the same thing each time to add up to a (x)RR vio.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not see this conversation beforehand. I was approached by the same editor, I presume, and I looked into the matter. Technically, one content revert and one page-move revert can be classified as a single revert. Personally, I don't agree with this classification, but nonetheless, I have shortened the block to five days. Let me know if you're fine with it. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I set the block duration to two weeks now. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with the length, but I disagree with your statement that they can be classified as a single revert. For the 3RR, you do not have to revert the same thing each time; they still add up. Why would it be any different here? It's completely counter intuitive. One content revert + one move revert = one single revert? 1+1=1??? No....1+1=2. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I wasn't exactly invited here, but 3RR states reversion to the same revision.--LWF 18:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that: "A revert, in this context, means undoing, in whole or in part, the actions of another editor or of other editors. This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content, undoing page moves (sometimes called "move warring"), undoing administrative actions (sometimes called "wheel warring"), or recreating a page." "An editor does not have to perform the same revert on a page more than three times to breach this rule; all reverts made by an editor on a particular page within a 24 hour period are counted."

What Hajji Piruz is misreading is the next line, which says "Consecutive reverts by one editor are treated as one revert for the purposes of this rule." Well for 1, we are not operating under that rule, so this sentence does not apply. For another, his reverts were not consecutive. He initially deleted content. That counts as revert 1. Then he moved the page. I reverted both. He then restored the page move (Revert 2), and then restored the content (would be still revert 2 under the 3RR, but since the 3RR is not what we're viewing this under, it would actually be revert 3). Either way, though, since his original actions constituted a deletion of content away from the accepted version, without consensus, they were a revert, so his subsequent actions were a second revert, and a violation of his parole. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a removal of an entire section of an article, followed by a revert page-move. I don't see where you getting 3 reverts from. There are only two edits. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Depends on your point of view, but it could be either two or three. Either is more than 1.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

2 is understandable, but could you explain where 3 is coming from? Note that the parole is for 1RR on any article in one week. He's only done a page-move revert and content revert. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) the 3 is if you count the consecutive reverts. As I noted above, "consecutive reverts count as 1" only applies to the 3 revert rule. It does not apply to this in letter or in spirit. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

MfD

your recent post to MfD had a misformat on the sig (it's in a 'code box' because of a leading space. Just thought I'd let you know. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 02:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I saw but was too lazy to fix it. Thanks!⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

American Civil War GA sweeps review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I have recently reviewed American Civil War and have determined that it is in very good shape but need some assistance to remain a GA. I have put the article on hold for seven days until the issues on the talk page of the article are addressed. I wanted to mention this to you since you are a significant contributor to the page and, if interested, could assist in improving the article and help it to remain a GA. It currently has a few problems concerning the lead and citation templates & needs about 20 more inline citations for quotes, numbers, etc. Additionally, I will be leaving messages on other WikiProjects and editors affiliated with the page to increase the number of participants assisting in the workload.

If you have any questions about what I've said here, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 03:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't do too much with GA's, but yeah, that looks like a lot of citations needed. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

AN/I thread

Fosnez has raised issues concerning your "attitude" at AN/I, viz., here. Although I cannot imagine that significant further discussion should take place there—it has been suggested that Fosnez pursue a user conduct RfC—I suppose you ought to be apprised of the thread's existence in order that you might address Fosnez if you're so inclined (I know that you're an AN/I regular, so this may well be an unnecessary notification; no harm, though, I guess). Joe 03:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think some discussion should take place there about how he's stalking and harassing me, but thanks for notifying me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

On 9 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article United States v. Oppenheimer , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 15:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Awesome!!!!⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology

We have had our differences, mainly because of the way I have perceived your opinion of the Rescue Squadron. From the responses to the Incident, it would indeed appear that you are a respectable Administrator. People say that it takes a lot to apologise, so I hope you don't think this is off the cuff or anything like that. I genuinely apologise for my actions and I hope we can put these differences behind us and work to improve wikipedia together. Fosnez 01:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed, honestly. You should know that I credit you with the inspiration to work on DYK's and new US Supreme Court article creation over the past few days. Apology accepted. Also, consider checking out Wikipedia:Intensive Care Unit, which I feel serves all the beneficial purposes of Article rescue squadron, but it doesn't have the negative connotations of AFD votestacking, and their template is much more to my liking. I may be a deletionist, but I definitely like the ICU. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)