User talk:Swatjester/archive12

Fair Use screenshots in a living person's bio?

Hi, could you take a look at the article Catherine Zeta-Jones? There are 3 Fair Use images said to be screenshots used in that article; aren't such images only to be used in an article about the movie itself, not the actor's biography? JGHowes ^talk - 16:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Women and SWAT

I was scanning through the discussion at the talkpage of the article on SWAT and saw you making this comment:

"Depends on department, but in most cases, yes. However women make up a relatively small percentage of patrol officers, and within that most do not pass the physical and mental tests for SWAT operations." (Link)

What "mental tests" are women unable to pass in equal quality as opposed to their male counterparts? --Thus Spake Anittas 00:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well first of all, most women are able to pass the tests in equality. The "and mental" was meant to signify that there are mental as well as physical tests involved in joining SWAT. (My unable to pass comment was directed purely at the physical part of it). Unique to SWAT, however, is the high likelyhood of having to pull the trigger, especially as a sniper. A SWAT officer is more likely to have to engage in a firefight than a patrol officer. There is an unspoken rule that women do not go on SWAT, and the ones that do are clearly and undisputedly able to be shooters. Is it fair? No. It's reality. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing. I was just curious to find out what you meant. Altough some of those mental abilities that you are referring to, assuming that they relate to selfdiscipline and objective focus, are based more on developing skill and personal character. Men probably find it easier to terminate other males, than females would; and vice-versa. --Thus Spake Anittas 02:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. There is a significant hangup for men killing women, that I believe women killing women do not have. I do not 100% agree that it goes the other way around, the there is a hangup for women killing men; I feel that desensitization has taken care of that for us. The argument is that across the board women have a greater hangup about killing. I don't have data to support this here, it's just from observation.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Request you reintstate article

Hi, Swatjester, you have just speedily deleted the Midreshet Lindenbaum article about a Jewish school of importance to current Judaism. Some editors who know more about this topic wish to have it re-instated ASAP, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Midreshet lindenbaum speedily deleted?. Kindly reinstate the article, per Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Contesting a proposed deletion, and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Proposed deletions: "Articles deleted under this procedure (using the {{prod}} tag) may be undeleted, without further discussion, on a reasonable request. Any administrator can be asked to do this (or perform this action themselves)..." In the future, before deleting any articles relating to Jews and/or Judaism kindly check with editors who may know more about this subject by asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism where editors who follow these kinds of topics should be notified. Thank you, IZAK 09:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not need to clear my deletions with any Wikiproject. Further the deletion was a speedy deletion, and a valid one at that, not a prod. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am exercising my powers as an administrator and undeleting this article. This institution asserts notablilty, and WP:CSD A7 doesn't apply. Please use the WP:AfD process if you wish to delete this article. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That is inappropriate. WP:DRV is the correct venue. Furthermore the deletion was valid, the institution did not assert notability and STILL has no sources, even after your reinstatement. Shoddy behavior in my book. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If you choose to re-delete, which you have a right to, I will not undelete again but will make a deletion review request through channels. I ask you to consider this before deciding whether to do so: The subject of this article was the first institution in the world to offer a religious higher education program for women in a Yeshiva-style environment. As such, it is famous in the world, with substantial reference in both the academic and the religious press. I ask you, in the interest of the project, to look at the current list of references, which are all I've been able come up with in a few minutes. It is very clear at this point that there is both arguable notability and experienced Wikipedia editors who would be prepared to contest any deletion and bring in additional sources and arguments. WP:CSD simply isn't intended for such cases. If you wish to you can also complain about this and I will take responsibility for what I have done. I regret my initial reaction; we occassionally get requests for deletions of articles on subjects of this type from people who object to them on religious grounds, and occassionally those requests go through. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So why not simply add sources to the claims that I am deleting? I don't object to it existing as a stub right now, but claims like that have to be sourced. As for CSD-A7, it is not about actual notability, but assertion of such notability. When I deleted the article, it did not assert that.

You're missing the point. I don't care whether the article stays or not. But the claims that it is the "foremost institution in the world" and such like that need to be referenced and cited to reliable sources. Otherwise they CANNOT stay. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no such claim. The claims are that (a) it was the first, (b) among the foremost. Easily verified, see [1] and [2], both on the list of references. I have no connection with the institution. --Shirahadasha 17:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

So take those links and put them in the claim, and we have no more problem! What was so hard about doing that the first time?⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I had put the sources in previously. I believe the edit history bears this out. The article has been substantially improved. I hope we can move on from here. Best, --Shirahadasha

Please look at the article and let me know if you need yet more citations. I'm sure they can be found. Also, I want to repeat user:IZAK's observation - in the future it might be wise, if an article is part of a project, to check with that project before deleting something for lack of notability. I had a number of things planned for this evening and felt compelled to change my plans just to rescue this article. If you had checked in advance and just accepted our word about its significance (at least temporarily), I could have delayed this work until a more convenient time. Best, Egfrank 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I would never change my personal plans because of a Wikimedia article. That borders on obsession. No edit is so urgent and presing (except BLP edits) that it cannot wait. And while you may repeat IZAK's observation, it's not my job nor is it possible to know every Wikiproject and to notify them before deleting an article that may fall under their scope, especially not when the article is a valid candidate for speedy deletion in the first place. That's an example of wikiprojects attempting to exceed their authority, a problem that seems to be occurring far too often lately. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for quick reverting of your de-linking of links to reinstated article. I was too lazy to type edit comments. `'Míkka 19:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed, but thank you for doing the work instead of me! :) ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Swatjester, I am re-posting here what I have just written to you on my own talk page, because of its importance and because I see that what we are dealing with here is in essence a clash of mindsets as well: Thank you for your response [3]. Let me make it very clear that no-one is questioning your "Jewishness" (it's spelled with a "J" by the way.) The deletion was reverted by Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) [4] and supported by others, so the point is moot now. You know, you should be cautious about WP:LAWYER which advises against: "(1) Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy; (2) Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit; (3) Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express; and (4) Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions." All because Wikipedia is an academic encyclopedia in action and motion and not a court of law! Furthermore I still wish to highly recommend to you the help that anybody can find at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism for discussions, and the usefulness of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism that are wonderful resources of bringing nominations and proposals to a wider spectrum of editors who deal with topics relating to Jews and Judaism on a frequest basis on Wikipedia. You will always be welcome. Sincerely, IZAK 09:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I also think that your tone and comments (above) to both Users Egfrank (talk · contribs) and Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) were rude, condescending and insulting, such as when you state: "Shoddy behavior in my book" or "I would never change my personal plans because of a Wikimedia article. That borders on obsession." or "an example of wikiprojects attempting to exceed their authority, a problem that seems to be occurring far too often lately." All violations of WP:CIVIL. And by asserting your "right" to not only not seek but quash the opinions of Wikiprojects you violate WP:OWN on a grand scale, most grievously, by your own words and actions, that are uncalled for. Thank you, IZAK 09:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S., you've done nothing to show me that you recognize your own mistake. You came onto my talk page accusing me of deleting something under a deletion method that I did not use. You then accused me of an invalid deletion, which it was not. You then told me that I was wrong for not consulting your Wikiproject, which I am not. You then accused me of WP:OWN issues, which I have not (I cannot "own" an article by deleting it by following policy). I am not a member of your Wikiproject, nor do I wish to be. Wikiprojects are purely organizational, they have no "teeth" as it were. You do not get to dictate to administrators what they can and cannot do without approval of your Wikiproject. And you think I have ownership issues? Please get your facts right before you ever come back onto my talk page in an uncivil and accusatory manner. Finally, do not ever incorrectly lecture me on the WP:LAWYER principle. I'm keenly aware of what Wikipedia is not. I spend every day dealing with legal issues and complaints, I am aware that Wikipedia is not law. There is nothing wrong with me stating that I would never change my social plans to deal with a Wikipedia problem. To do so does in fact border on obsession, and indicates that there is some sort of ownership or unclear judgment issue on behalf of the editor. I am within my rights to hold an opinion on that. Who are you to tell me that I cannot state my own analysis of that, on my own talk page, in a civil manner. (Despite your assertions, nothing about what I said was uncivil. Civility does not require coddling or babytalk.) So, after your ridiculous accusations, I would suggest that you more clearly take a look at Wikipedia policies and procedures and make sure you are actually correct in your allegations before you accuse other people of things. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Swatjester: Thank you for your response. I am starting to get a clearer picture of how you operate. From your reply I can see that you do not have the foggiest idea of the amount of hard work that Wikipedia's voluntary editors put into this encyclopedia and how much they may actually treasure it, and that while I may not have cited the correct "chapter and verse" to the nth degree, it's always a mad rush to save something that is going down the tubes and there isn't always time to look up every last little ruling, nevertheless it did not take too long for another admin to overturn your hasty deletion that was based on faulty information. It is a shame and I have no interest in bothering you unless I see something else of the same nature crop up. I would never dare enter into a field I knew nothing or little about and mess with articles, but that is just me. Have a good day. IZAK 13:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at my user page to see exactly how much hard work and time I personally have put into Wikipedia. Nearly two years, 12,000 edits, hundreds of OTRS actions, time spent at the foundation office, and you say that I haven't the foggiest idea? Once again, I'm offended. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

SwatJester, I think you are taking this issue far too personally. The editors above who have expressed concern have tried to be polite and kind. They have a right to express their concerns - just as you have a right to disagree with them. The suggestion to consult the WikiProjects listed on an article's discussion page before accepting an assertion of non-notability was offered in a supportive spirit, not a judgemental spirit. There is no need to express anger in return. Egfrank 13:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed! IZAK 13:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply responding to the unsubstantiated and blatantly false statements that IZAK has written every single time that he posts on my page. It's annoying, and it's a misrepresentation of both myself and my opinions. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 01:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Watt balance image

Swatjester: Why did you delete (edit change here) the NIST watt balance picture from the Kilogram article? Your terse edit summary comment “bad fair use image” is hardly descriptive. I thought I had made a clear case for fair use in the Licensing section and had used it precisely as required. Greg L (my talk) 00:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be a valid fair use image on say, the NIST page, or on a watt balance page. But since we already have free images on the Kilogram page, this image does not significantly improve the article enough to justify a fair use image. Try to find a free one instead. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, the principal free image is one I made and donated so the article looks professional. The billiards picture is obviously free with no licensing encumberments. The ‘displacement’ picture had its copyright expire. Whether or not there are other pictures in an article should be mostly irrelevant to whether or not it is fair use to use the Watt balance picture. The primary legal issue should be whether or not the Watt balance section of the article sufficiently discusses the NIST’s implementation of the watt balance merit the fair use of the copyrighted image. Right? I would prefer to add text to the section regarding the NIST’s implementation and add the picture. The picture gives the reader a sense of the incredible effort that is going into these electronic versions. You should also know that I’ve exchanged probably well over a dozen e-mails with Richard Steiner at the NIST while writing this article and he read the article (several times) during my editing. He thinks its an accurate section and certainly doesn't mind his project’s privileged treatment in the article. My mentioning his name in the caption was partially an acknowledgment to him for all the time he spent writing rather expansive answers back to me. I do my homework when writing these articles and would like this decision to based solely on the legal hurdle that must be met. You’ve got your law degree so I would appreciate more legal detail in the explanation of your reasoning. Would a modest expansion to the section in question so the picture looks less decorative address your objections? Greg L (my talk) 03:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A little early, I don't have my law degree yet, it's in progress. And there is no legal detail in my explanation for the removal. I've removed in under WP:NFCC, our policy on Non free content criteria. Number 1: No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense. Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect?" If the answer is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.). Also, (a) Minimal number of uses. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. But most importantly, it does not meet rule number 8: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function. Unfortunately, this image's omission is not detrimental to the understanding of what a kilogram is. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• SwatJester: OK now… Respectfully, I think you are mistaken. Maybe the picture isn't related to the current IPK-based version of the kilogram. However, the “kilogram” is the subject of the article, right? (say “yes” here); and the NIST’s implementation of the Watt balance is the leading contender in the development of the future “electronic kilogram”. A version of the Watt balance will likely one day be the kilogram. The picture of the electronic kilogram (the next definition of the kilogram) is solidly germane to the topic of this article. And clearly, the picture isn’t being used decoratively at the head of the article to give it *bling*; it accompanied the text directly addressing the Watt balance to illustrate that precise topic. Regarding the test of “Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect,” as I explained in the picture’s rational, clearly not. Access to the lab is highly restricted and no other pictures can be substituted. If the above is your reasoning, I want you to reconsider your position. The picture clearly illustrates the topic of “kilogram.” Greg L (my talk) 04:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• P.S.: I added another bullet item to the fair-use rational in the picture regarding what I wrote above. You have a lot of images to wade through and no one can expect you to read the entire article when making judgements of merit. The added bullet item could have saved us both some time and effort. Greg L (my talk) 04:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It still fails to meet the requirement of "significantly increases reader's understanding of the subject, and more importantly, it's ommission is not detrimental to the understanding of what the subject is. We strive to minimize our use of non-free media wherever possible. This is such a subject where we already have quite a few free pictures, we don't need to add another on-free one in there. Since we already have the non-free pictures, removing the free one does not detract from the article. Removing it helps continue to build Wikipedia as a free-content encyclopedia. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• SwatJester: If someone sees a picture of the IPK (a cylinder of metal), that sets an image in their mind of what the IPK is: a simple cylinder of metal. Now suppose that same reader then reads text describing how the kilogram may one day be delineated by a device called a “Watt balance.” Well, what in the world would such a thing look like? Big? Small? Complex? Why would any press release from the NIST include a picture of the apparatus being discussed? The answer is obvious: Without a picture, all the reader has is their imagination as to what a watt balance might look like and every reader will have a different picture in their head. A picture gives the reader some general concept of the nature of device is being discussed. I might agree with you if this was an issue over a four-inch diameter sphere of silicon (as with the Avogadro project). A picture of that wouldn’t do much to increase the reader’s sense of what a ‘silicon sphere’ looks like other than to see how shiny it is. And even that could be provided with additional text: ‘the Avogadro project’s silicone prototype would be smooth, really shiny sphere.’ Of course the picture of the Watt balance helps significantly increase the reader’s understanding; the nature of such a device is entirely outside of the average person’s experience. Greg L (my talk) 04:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• The problem is that people are coming to the kilogram page to learn about kilograms. A watt balance, while similar, is not the subject of the kilogram page. For fair-use purposes, that makes it too far attenuated. Remember, we are a free content encyclopedia, and we need to be focusing as much of our efforts as possible in the direction of finding and collecting free images, rather than forcing and justifying fair-use ones in there. Fair-use images hurt wikipedia. I've said my peace, and I think I've made my points abundantly clear that there is a clear rationale for removing that image on the Kilogram page. If that image were to be on the Watt balance page, obviously that would be acceptable. At this point I do not feel there is anything left to discuss here that hasn't been said already. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• “The problem is that people are coming to the kilogram page to learn about kilograms.”  Precisely (but that’s not a “problem”). “A watt balance, while similar, is not the subject of the kilogram page.” Correct observation, entirely incorrect premiss to support your position.

  1) The picture accompanies a section within the Kilogram article directly discussing the Watt balance. 2) the Watt balance—something you think somehow isn’t related to the kilogram—may one day be the new definition and delineation of the kilogram. If that isn't topical to the subject of “kilogram”, nothing is SwatJester.

  Your rationale for deleting this picture from the article has been bouncing around and I’ve chased each one down and properly addressed them only to have you test a new reason. One of the reasons you cited earlier was “Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect,” as I explained right in the picture’s fair-use rational, clearly not; public access to the lab is restricted.

  Another angle you’ve tried is whether the picture "significantly increases reader's understanding of the subject.” I clearly explained above that the Watt balance is a complex piece of machinery that is totally beyond the bounds of common experience and a picture is clearly necessary for someone to develop some understand the nature of device.

  Finally, the Watt balance is a project funded by the U.S. Government. The picture is free to use wherever the NIST’s project is being discussed. You seem to be misapplying a solution to an entirely different problem, such as if a picture of a copyrighted movie poster of Gone With the Wind was being used in an article on Vivien Leigh. The basis for deleting the movie poster is obvious in this example: one weighs infringement of a copyright owners rights against whether there is clear and compelling reason to do so. In the case of the Watt balance picture, it is of a government-funded project and is being used in the manner intended by the NIST. Finally it’s clear on the face of it that the Watt balance (a project to develop a better kilogram and something that could one day be the kilogram) is germane to the topic of “kilogram”; this much is just too obvious.

  Have you received an objection from Robert Rathe Photography? If so, then I’m going to raise hell at the NIST that they let a photographer get exclusive access to their lab to take pictures for them and he’s not abiding by the terms of the deal. Greg L (my talk) 20:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, no I've received no communications. For another, you do not seem to understand our Non-Free Content Criteria. I've done my best to explain them to you, but if you cannot understand them, I will not further argue with it. Suffice it to say, the picture would be acceptable on a separate "watt balance" article but it simply is not allowable on the Kilogram article. I've given you many reasons why: it's too attenuated, we have other free pictures to explain the subject, it's not the direct subject of the article, it doesn't improve the article, it's omission does not hurt the article, etc. Your argument that "maybe the watt balance will be the new kilogram" is not for us to decide on Wikipedia; that's original research and does not belong here. As for the Watt balance project's funding by the US Government, that does not automatically make it a free image; it certainly has no effect if the photographer is not a US Government employee. I'm sorry, but your reasons to keep the image are simply not compelling enough. I'm not inclined to discuss the situation any further. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

A BLP case

Greetings Swatjester, I notice you once intervened on Aleksandar Donski on BLP/OTRS grounds. The offending material you removed was all back when I looked today. I haven't yet checked the page history to see who's responsible. Maybe this could do with another look by you too. Time for blocks? There's some pretty persistent edit-warring going on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't been following it since then. Looks like you have it all under control. By the way, I'm pretty sure that one IP address (starts with an 8) that edit summaried with "Balance!" is User:Jingiby while blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch [5], that's Jingiby, but he isn't blocked at the moment. Last block he had was yours a month ago. In general, Macededonian-Bulgarian feuds have been running high, lots of tendentious editing from all corners. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was. I atempted to balance in the edit - war between Frightner and others and added two references, but it did not help! Regards! Jingby 17:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Erie v. Pap's A. M.

On 14 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Erie v. Pap's A. M., 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.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 09:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

And that's two! Thanks! ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images in userspace

That's not what I'm complaining about, since I am now aware of the policy. What I'm objecting to is the way it was done. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers!

		WikiMedal for Janitorial Services
		Cheers for your speedy deletion work! JHunterJ 11:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I linked over here from an unrelated Talk page, but I saw the opening discussion of the deletion of Midreshet Lindenbaum. Just wanted to voice my agreement with your actions; if the project had an issue with a speedy tag (or a prod), it should have voiced those objections on the articles talk page before it was deleted, and if they missed that window of opportunity, simply recreated it or raised a deletion review. There's no point in blaming admins for using the tools appropriately, and there's certainly no need to demand admins check any other part of WP for possible concerns before using the tools. -- JHunterJ 11:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikimania 2008/Conference of the Americas

Hello, As you may or may not know, Alexandria, Egypt was selected to host Wikimania 2008 [6]. So as to prevent the hard work of the many Wikimedians involved in the Atlanta bid from going to waste, we have decided to host a conference for the Americas. This is in no way an attempt to compete with Wikimania or make a statement against Wikimania.

As one of the people signed up to help with the Wikimania Atlanta bid, we hope you will join us at the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas. We will be having a meeting tonight in IRC tonight (Oct 15) at 9:30PM in #cota-atlanta on irc.freenode.org to discuss the conference. For more information about IRC see [7].

For more information about the Wikimedia Conference of the Americas see http://www.cota-atlanta.org and our wiki http://www.cota-atlanta.org/wiki.

If you do not wish to receive further notices about the COTA please remove your name from our notify list. --Cspurrier 18:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

drv

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rhianna. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --W.marsh 02:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use review

Swatjester, I’ve appealed for a Fair-use-review of the suitability of using the Watt balance picture in the Kilogram article here. Greg L (my talk) 19:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

I went back and looked at the user's edits. I realize the user posted a second unblock template but that doesn't constitute abuse of the system. They were being civil, just confused and somewhat offended and I can't blame them. I still see no reason why the page was protected; rather, it seems to have been done so that the user can't bother us anymore with requests for an explanation. Also, I want to point out that this protection prevents the user from requesting unblocking to file a name change request at WP:CHU. So please reconsider. Mangojuice^talk 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverting on Talk:Kilogram

I don't think this and [8] edit are really appropriate. The talk page for kilogram is the most appropriate place to discuss whether a certain image belongs in that article. Moving discussions from other talk pages is a recommended practice per WP:MULTI. You mention "GFDL violation" in the edit summary. What part of the GFDL are you referring to? In a talk-page discussion, every statement is properly attributed to an editor. Han-Kwang (t) 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a direct copy and past from my talk page. Since I am not properly attributed in the history of that page, it is a GFDL violation, not to mention very rude. The talk page has nothing to do with whether the image fails to qualify as a valid fair use image. All the talk page consensus in the world is irrelevant if the image does not meet our non-free-content criteria, which this one clearly does not. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, re rudeness - as an active Wikipedian and certainly as an admin you will need a thick skin. Re GFDL: OK, so GregL should have used an edit summary like "Continuing discussion from Talk:Swatjester and copying old discussion for context." Why answer (perceived) rudeness with rudeness (reverting without much of an explanation)? Re non-free-content criteria: I tend to agree with you that it doesn't fall under the fair-use guidelines, but that's not the point I tried to make here. Han-Kwang (t) 22:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the rudeness, it doesn't bother me. But, just the same, civility is not an optional traint. As for the revert of the GFDL stuff, I did explain it in the edit summary, as well as explained it to him. I understand the point you tried to make, but Greg L has had everything explained to him until the cows came home. At some point, enough is enough. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

... for your upbeat manner. And the info on unblocking process. Take care, HG | Talk 04:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Official UNOFFICIALvandalpolice

I have posted a response to your assumptions here. I believe it provides another perspective to some of the claims you make about my "disruptions". TUvp 10:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you had tried reading my message rather than just closing the discussion you would have noted that I said I only ever looked at the reviewed unblock template once, the second and third time having read off the diff and did not see the warning. The one time I did read it I skim read, having first noted the unblocking admin's comments and was eager to respond to them, and did not pay full attention to the text at the top which I did not expect to change from a bolded "This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:" to an equally bolded "Do not replace this message with another unblock request or add another unblock request." This was compounded by other users such as this one posting multiple unblock templates without being scrutinised.

As I said I only ever viewed the warning once, not three times, and I'm sure we can both appreciate the outcome of skim reading (if you hadn't skim read my post on ANI I wouldn't be needing to post here). If you or John Reaves had looked beyond the assumption that some of us don't know policy as well as you and actually posted a message clarifying that none of this would have arisen. As for the original block, I am still waiting for someone to tell me when I can actually respond to the unfair discussion that was closed before I had a chance to respond to the arguments raised, most of which were simple repetitions of the same basic concept which I was not able to address. That said, seeing the lack of accountability I do not hold high hopes of that happening. 58.168.72.66 23:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Your mistakes in not reading what unblocking admins tell you, are not our emergency. Had you actually read the unblock template like you were supposed to, instead of blindly reverting to say that you didn't know, you might have been unblocked. But don't refuse to pay attention and then blame others for not telling you what you should have already knew. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

WCL and 4910 Mass Ave

WCL does have offices there. [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankg (talk • contribs) 15:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I wonder how many people don't realize it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It's apparently just miscellaneous offices that didn't fit in the building. And to answer the question from my talk page, yes, I'm on SBA. (I just noticed that you run the blog I commented on the other day as well, small world!) Frankg 17:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Yeah, I figured I knew who you were, but didn't want to out your name on Wikipedia (generally considered bad form). Check back on the blog every now and then, and if you need anything on Wikipedia, don't hesitate to let me know.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's talkpage

Thankyou for helping Greg L to identify the mistake he made in accidentally accusing me of removing his comments from Jimbo's talkpage. Yes, the one I removed was blatant vandalism, which unfortunately occurs all to often there. I've provided him the diff as backup. Cheers, and happy editing! Lradrama 09:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Lradrama has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Can you delete

The article was already deleted so nows there just a talk page foreverDEAD 22:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Curiousity

Just out of curiousity, what is the reason for the Denny Crane part of your signature? Is it the Denny Crane played by William Shatner in Boston Legal? Why does it link to WP:Climbing? Most sigs link to contrib or talk pages so yours surprised me. Sbowers3 05:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Same Denny Crane as played by Shatner. It's probably my favorite TV show ever, and he's my favorite character. As for WP:CLIMB, I founded the wikiproject. My sig does link to my talk page, it just has problems linking properly in some browsers. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI: for me, the arrow links to your user page, but SWATJester comes in as black and gold but doesn't show as a link. Denny's fine. (I'm on Firefox.) The arrow gets me close enough though. Tvoz |talk 19:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat. My sig is supposed to send the "SWATJester" part of my sig to my talk, but doesn't for some reason.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Kilogram

Let’s not have a battle on this one. These issues have been thoroughly discussed and no one else agrees with him. His placing of the “dispute” tag is beyond reason and other editors have told him so. Don’t let him hoodwink you. Greg L (my talk) 17:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how you removing fact tags that he placed, without any reasoning why or filling in of sources is within reason. I also fail to see how claiming he is hoodwinking me assumes good faith. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

re: indenting

I agree completely with what you are saying. Your first example is indented correctly to show what responds to what. I would not change it. Your second example indicates a completely different order of replies and who is replying to whom. If I make a change I will be careful to preserve the structure. You are correct to worry about the possibility and to try to prevent an error before it occurs. BTW, do you prefer that users reply on your page as I am now, or to reply on my page below your comment? Either way is okay with me, but I like to conform to the other party's preference. Sbowers3 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter too much to me. I prefer it on my page, so I get a notice about it, but I check my watchlist at least 30 times a day (no joke) so I'd see it on your page either way. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA nom

Hello. I appreciate the offer however I don't think it's a good idea right now. I'm involved in some pretty sticky articles attempting to improve them and I tend to get on the wrong side of people in the process, if you know what I mean. I've been working on Homeopathy, Parapsychology, and Race of Ancient Egyptians some of the most disputed articles on the project. In the process of improving them, even the most civil and restrained editors tend to make a lot of enemies by default. Though most of the time a lot of editors who show hostility towards me during the rewrites appreciate the work done in the end, during the process a few tend to hold animosity toward me, and even a few do after the articles are fixed and are GAs or FAs. In the foreseeable future it's only going to get worse as I'm taking on Race and Intelligence, which will no doubt cause a swarm of hostility towards me when that hornets nest is turned upside down. The most likely scenario is that I would get a lot of oppositions from editors from past and current article rewrites who hold resentment towards me for one reason or another, which would in turn lead to even more oppositions from editors just taking a glance at the other oppositions and opposing based on that, generally without reading them. You know, the whole "Oppose per above" comment from people opposing on a glance just to get more RFA counts. So I'm going to have to turn down your offer. I just don't believe that any request for adminship on my part would possibly succeed, at least at this time. Thanks anyway though. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA nom

Wow - thanks for the thought. I'll have a think about it and get back to you at some point next week - I'm not going to be around much for the next couple of days from home, and WP is blocked at work at present because too many rude words in articles have triggered the pornography filters! Regardless of whether I say yes or not, I am deeply honoured that you think I'm up to the task. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 04:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Why you should support me....

I've got a proven record of vandalfighting without being overzealous about it, and I know WP policies very well because of the time I've spent here learning about how WP works. I'm willing to contribute in lots of different areas; I will often comment on ANI if I think I have something of value to say, or find things to look into from ANI. I do a lot of the "dirty and thankless"-type jobs: I RFCU clerk, I worked on COI for a bit, and I have spent some time on XfDs and article creation. Some of the reasons people wouldn't support me are because of my supposed article specialization, but I have plenty of contribs to other things besides Freemasonry-related articles. I've revamped the entire Patriarca crime family article and cat, reorganized the cats under Category:Motorcycling, and cleaned up quite a few band articles as best I could. There was a Jarmann rifle article I was asked to copyedit and did (I forget what it was - WegianWarrior will know), and I've also done things per League of Copyeditors request on a town in the UK. I don't track these things; I just do them in order to make WP better, and because I want to do them, and I think as far as adminship goes, I don't want it to have some sort of status, but rather because it will help me do things better on WP, and contribute better in different areas that require admins to clear backlogs.

In short, I think I do have the range of WP knowledge and breadth of WP experience to be an effective administrator and the maturity not to be heavy-handed or abusive about it. MSJapan 05:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:RfA nom

Um, my first one failed 0-6 - with many critical comments. I have also been blocked once under a different name. I'm not sure I'm ready. I can give you names of my comrads here and get their opinions.Mitch32^contribs 10:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rfa Nom

Thanks I accept, since you appear to be offline I'll start the rfa page and you can add your nom statement when your online. --Chris  G  10:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:RfA nom

Hi, I thank you for the offer. I accept your nomination. What would the next step be? Just out curiousity, what made you want to nominate me? Thanks! --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 09:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, have you started the nomination page? Thanks! --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 22:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, while you were typing that, in fact. My kittens distracted me for a bit, but it's up now.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination. I am logging off now but will be sure to complete it tommorow morning. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget to put it on the RFA page when you're finished. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Real names = outing users = bad policy for Wikipedia

Concerning your activity here, while prudent and needed for the project, there is no User:Greg Kohs, so you should probably oversight and revamp your edit summary. SpiralingMusic 13:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Greg Kohs is well known to the foundation, and uses his real name on Wikipedia review. I don't see a need to do it. Considering he has many sockpuppets and I don't remember which is the name of the original one, it's easier to just identify it that way.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: RFA nom

Goodness! Heh, I did not see that one coming! Well, sure, and thank you very much! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a break from editing?

Why would you think I need a break from editing, uploading non-free images perhaps would be understandable (even for those; however, I provide detailed explanation and were supposed to be qualified as fair use under United States copyright law and were, at least up until now). My deal with "High on a tree" is that he removed the images days before the expected deletion dates read. Is that not considered vandalism, should not one have the right to provide/add explanation for non-free rationale until the last day the tag reads?--Harout72 05:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: We don't agree

We seem not to see eye to eye based on the comments of Wikidudeman above in your recent relentless RfA nominations for some candidates that really don't appear ready. The most recent withdrawl by a candidate with a recent history of incivilty whom you described as "civil" in your nom being a case in point. In addition I recall an ANI thread where you accused me of being in error and alowing myself to be trolled when this was clearly not the case (over a clear sock blanking parts of the RFB process). However this is an aside, as I believe your RfA for ChrisG to be wise, and I certainly hold no personal animosity - I just often don't agree with your views on things when I've seen them expressed. That of course can be positive, as consensus bulding and editors holding different views is what strengthens this work. I certainly wish you well and look forward to collaborating with you. Very Best. Pedro :  Chat  13:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: admin nom

I actually appreciate you for considering nominating me for RfA. I've thought about it, and since in the past couple days I resolved the only remaining conflict I have had with another user, I think that now would be a good time for me to make my first attempt. If you'd like, you can submit the nomination for me, and I'll accept it and answer the questions and all that stuff. Thank you, Ksy92003(talk) 03:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thank you very much. I accepted the nomination and answered the other questions, and if you would like to take whatever extra procedures are necessary for the RfA, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Ksy92003(talk) 05:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I added my RfA to WP:RfA, so I don't think anything else needs to do. Thanks one more time for the nomination. Ksy92003(talk) 06:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please withdraw my nomination? I know it isn't going to be successful, and I also wanted to go through with it for feedback, which I've gotten. I've no need for it anymore, so could you please close it for me? Don't worry; I'll still try again later. Thanks again for the support. I'll let you know when I'd like to try one more time. Ksy92003(talk) 01:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Swatjester is done for the night so I've closed it. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for closing it for me, Wknight, but I do have something to say about your comment. You say that Chris was the one who ended the dispute, not me. That's because you told me not to talk to him. I was going to discuss this with him after his block expired, but you told me not to try to make peace with him. So how else could I try to end the dispute if you told me not to try? Ksy92003(talk) 16:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Why so many nominations?

Why are you nominating so many editors for admin? It seems that at least some of them have an unlikely chance of succeeding, so why have you been nominating so many in the past day or two? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Because we need more admins. I nominate people who I believe would do a good job, not who I believe can pass the RFA. If they pass the RFA, good. If not, they know what to do next time. But we currently have a promotion rate of approximately one admin per day (350 a year or so), slightly over that. We need to double that, especially since anon page creation was just enabled. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Swatjester; we do need more admins. You've nominated some very promising future admins. Keep it up, — jacĸrм (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Since when was anon-page creations enabled? Can you provide a link to the relevant discussion page? Thanks. --Hdt83 ^Chat 04:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

See village pump policy, and Wiki-EN-L mailing list. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"I nominate people who I believe would do a good job, not who I believe can pass the RFA" - Good, keep doing that. Even if some may not be good candidates and some may not be ideal unanimous-support candidates, it's worth it. - TwoOars (Rev) 05:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Plus, it teaches them more than an editor review will about the actual process. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Jeeny

I have posted a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to have this users talk page protected. Thought i would let you know. Tiptoety 04:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Block

All the articles I have started were mass deleted. 203.218.133.216 04:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello Swatjester. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

Tiptoety 05:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking part in the discussion, i (for the most part) did not think you did wrong, but do to the fact that there were multiple regular users who disagreed with your action and the fact that a wikipedian (Jeeny) decided to leave, i thought it best to have some kind of mediation/ANI discussion about it. Thank you again! Tiptoety 06:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI Question

"As picaroon said, we shouldn't punish other users by protecting the page just because these twothree can't play nice. "

So are you willing to unprotect the page now? - Rjd0060 06:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments in all of this by the way. I hope to have a successful RfA sometime in the future so I am trying to get involved in these things, and it gets somewhat chaotic. - Rjd0060 06:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected. I hope, however, you can view the changes that Jeeny made and see how they are more than just spelling and grammar changes, and actually change the meaning and context of the sentences. The fact that the changes were disputed reinforces how contentious they were. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of them were. I agree that some did change meaning, but some edits were strictly spelling and grammar. I know those two users have had problems in the past, which I believe, is the reason they were warring. But thanks again. - Rjd0060 06:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your block of Jeeny, but am not here to contest it. I'm here to comment that I have now seen two blocks this morning of yours which I disagree with. Your block of SchmuckyTheCat was just plain wrong. Reading the ANI discussion, you obviously didn't grasp the situation and got trigger happy. I suggest you research a little more thoroughly before you block in similar situations, and that you perhaps take a break from editing if your irritation level rises to such a point that you think blocking is the best option. That block came across to me as simple abuse of power. Jeffpw 07:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Or you could read the situation again. The block of SchmuckyTheCat was correct. Checkuser could not show a conclusive link between Kowlooner and the banned user. With no conclusive evidence to show that Kowlooner was a banned user, SchmuckyTheCat's edits were against policy. Even if the user WAS banned, they were highly disruptive. I'll ask you next time to do a little more research as to what I "obviously" grasped or did not grasp, and before you give me a lecture make sure you have the facts straight. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The user repeatedly asked you what the point was to block with the page being protected, and I must admit, I, myself, was becoming aggravated upon reading your curt non-responses (and curt block review, it is just too brief). I really am not comfortable with this particular post-block block. When the blocked user is already prone to incivility due to a block, the best thing to do upon an attack is to protect the talk page for a while, not block for longer and leave the page open for potentially more of the same. I am really quite surprised someone with your experience would commit this oversight. I am removing the one-week block extension and am reintroducing the original 48-hr duration. Regards, El_C 08:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I notice you're active right now, so I'll give a chance to respond before undoing. Regards, El_C 08:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

El C did you not see the original block, as applied by Picaroon, was valid for 3RR vio? I've now provided three times evidence of the 3rr vio. I could look back for the entire 24 hours and probably find 8 reverts by Jeeny. I unprotected the page (It should not have been protected in the first page). There was no oversight. Jeeny editwarred knowingly, without an attempt of consensus, and given her extensive extensive block history, should have known better. Frankly, I'm quite surprised that you don't see the situation here for what it is. It was a valid block, and the block extension was valid. Jeeny has always been a troublesome contributer, even despite the good edits that she does. After 6 blocks, one should make an attempt to learn what the policy is and not blatantly violate 3RR, especially after having been blocked for it before. No, a block of Jeeny was entirely appropriate, and her response to being shown evidence was entirely inappropriate. There is no excuse, whatsoever, for repeatedly, over three edits, telling someone to fuck off. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't respond to my argument about treating a blocked user sensitively, which you seemed to have failed to do. El_C 08:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Curtness does not necessarily equate to incivility or insensitivity, and neither justifies the kind of reaction Jeeny did. I won't pretend I coddled Jeeny, but I certainly was not uncivil or insulting about it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

When a blocked user becomes uncivil, the conventional response is to protect the page, not extend the block, which seems needlessly punitive. El_C 08:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if they were simply incivil. Blatant personal attacks combined with gross incivility warrant a block, especially given Jeeny's previous blocks for personal attacks and harassment. Once again, she should have known better. Had this been a first time vandal, perhaps things would have been different, in fact they probably would have. But this was no first time vandal. This was a user with 6, now 7 blocks, for 3RR, personal attacks, harassment, etc. Jeeny at this point should have known better, and should be held to a higher standard. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The page should have been protected; I'm not sure what you expected, seeing how volatile the situation was. El_C 09:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Unindent-- I should note that this has already been discussed at AN/I. Unanimously there, my actions were deemed appropriate. Kuryhk brought up the good point that protecting the page serves only to divert the discussion to another page. That the page should have been protected is your opinion. It's my opinion that the extending the block was correct. Wheel warring over this is a terrible idea, I'd urge you not to do it. I'm not sure how you think that protecting the page was a better idea, especially given the number of people talking there; but certainly your opinion alone isn't grounds to undo the block.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This will not be wheel warring, wheel warring would be if someone reverts me. Obviously, the reference is to the user's own talk page (!). El_C 09:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Bleh, the WP:WHEEL page has changed since I was promoted, it used to say, do not revert another admin's action without discussion and agreement, or consensus if there is no agreement. The point still stands. The original block was valid, and my block was valid. If she had said those words on any mainspace page, it would be instantly blockable. There is no difference to her doing it on her page. We regularly extend blocks for incivility and abusiveness. This is just another one of those times, no different. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You should have protected the user's talk page, seeing how volatile the situation was, and how your curt responses where not particularly design to facilitate calm. El_C 09:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That I should have protected the user's page is your opinion only. Plenty of other people agree with my actions. I disagree with your opinion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't respond to the substance of my opinion (just noting you disagree with it dosen't help much). I am restoring the original block; someone else may reissue it. Regards, El_C 09:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? I've responded to the substance of your opinion all over the place above. Jeeny committed a blockable offence. I blocked. That's valid. Your unblocking has no grounds. There is no policy that says I had to protect the page instead of blocking. I'm extremely disappointed in this, and I've just lost a huge amount of respect for you as an admin. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What? Does it look like I am speaking in jest (no pun intended)? I'll give you time to regain your composure. El_C 09:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a lack of composure, it's a shock that you'd so blatantly ignore that there is a consensus for this block. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the above, I can only imagine the level of calm you would be exhibiting if you were blocked. El_C 09:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, I manage to edit Wikipedia without massive 3RR vios, and telling people to fuck off. Somehow, like the vast majority of good users here, I've managed to avoid being blocked once, let alone 7 times. I wonder why that is? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

First you say it was six blocks, now it's seven; I count one block from Coelacan, one from Mr. Z man, and one from Raymond Aritt, for a total of three blocks until today that were not retracted or subject to an unblock. I think you are being far too harsh here (aside, when was the last time you preformed an unblock review?), both to myself and to her. There's no reason for me to act immediately, but I am, generally, disappointed with post-block civility blocks. This isn't the first time I spoke on the matter. El_C 10:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

When was the last time I performed an unblock review? Daily, in one format or another. I'm regularly on unblock-en-l, #wikipedia-en-unblock, and OTRS unblock queue. Your personal disappointment with post-block civility blocks isn't really my problem. Change the policy if you don't like it. As for the # of blocks, I count 1 from Coelacan, AGK, Mr Z-man, Phil-Sandifer, Raymond, Picaroon, and Myself. Of those, only AGK's was unblocked. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Phil apologized for blocking. The additional two blocks (you include your own) was today. I'm not sure it's productive for me to continue commenting here, however. El_C 10:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Phil did not apologize for blocking, he requested that admins do not consider this block because Jeeny is worried about it. That's not an apology. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Section break and outside view

It's a well established principle both from policy and arbcom practice, to everyday editorial conduct norms and admin handling, that preventing people from performing disruptive activity, making personal attacks or being uncivil, and dampening behavior that stirs drama and inflames disputes, are all legitimate uses of blocking policy.

Even for incivility there is strong precedent that a block is protective, for example this block decline by a current arbcom member, stating (to another editor):

"You were indeed warned to be civil; you chose to ignore the warnings. Preventing you from being incivil for 24 hours is a legitimate block".

The protective use of such blocks, and the damage caused by such conduct not being inhibited, is emphasized and re-emphasized in policy pages. For example see:

Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Personal attacks ... hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia". "Some types of comments are never acceptable: [eg] epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse." "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" "Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia." "A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to end up in the dispute resolution process, possibly including the serious consequences of arbitration, and may become subject to a community ban." "In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. [...] Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." (Note that NPA is a core conduct policy on Wikipedia, not an optional afterthought)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights [...] of [users]... A block for protection may be necessary in response to: [...] persistently making personal attacks." "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to: ... persistent gross incivility; ... edit warring or revert warring; ... persistently violating other policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive." "The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future. Administrators should consider: ... the severity of the behavior; whether the user has engaged in that behavior before."

Jenny breached the bright line rule WP:3RR which is there to dampen and curtail revert warring no manner whether right or wrong and replace it by dispute resolution. She responded to declination by making the following personal attacks [10][11].

Accordingly I concur with the block, and in the circumstances and, given the previous record of blocks for harassment, incivility that had already been escalated somewhat past the minimal 24 hours (even ignoring the Phil Sandifer block as he has requested), I concur that a week's block is an appropriate use of judgement.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The user was already blocked at the time of the extension. El_C 10:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That changes things, how? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

User is more volatile while blocked, turning mild insensitivity, in their mind, into de facto baiting. El_C 10:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

El C (edit conflict) -- a change to a block (both unblocking, or extending) is not especially unusual. Additionally, in this case the sequence was as follows: contribs log Oct 28 2007 block log

• 03:25, October 28, 2007 -- Picaroon blocks (48 hrs) for "revert warring".
• 04.28 and 04.31, October 28, 2007 -- Jenny, an editor with a history of both warnings and multiple blocks for recent incivility/NPA already (Aug 18 48hr, Sept 22 72hr), then posts multiple personal attacks when unblock declined.
• 04:35, October 28, 2007 -- Swatjester extends block to a week for incivility.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

El C- source that people are more volatile when blocked? Source that Jeeny wasn't an overly volatile person to begin with and that's why were here in the first place? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

G-Unit Boss

I find

--<small>'''<span style="border:4px solid #484848; background:#828282;">[[User:The-G-Unit-Boss|<span style="color:#FFFFFF;">¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤</span>]]</span>'''</small>

to be quite lengthy, you are correct that the signature isn't transcluded but "Signature templates are vandalism targets, and will be forever, even if the user leaves the project. Simple text signatures, which are stored along with the page content, use no more resources than the comments themselves and avoid these problems." still applies, see User:The-G-Unit-Boss/Signature. And I am not the one applying for adminship.--Professional Deletionist 11:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's incredibly petty of a reason to oppose, especially since the transclusion reason isn't even relevant. You must especially hate my sig then, it's nearly twice G-unit's length. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, hope you don't mind me commenting here, but I would like to let Professional Deletionist know that yes I am using a template but I am substituting it which gives the same result as just having the code in the signature field in my preferences. It is also below the character limit. Thanks. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 12:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA nomination offer

I have responded at User talk:Camaron1. Thanks. Camaron1 | Chris 11:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to see my more recent comments on this on my talk page. Camaron1 | Chris 18:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:My Rfa offer

Thank you for taking your time leaving a message on my talk page. I do thank that you are willing to nominate, but I feel that I am far not ready yet. --Tadayuki ^紅葉 23:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sagbliss' Talk Page

Hi. I understand why you blocked editing the page, but you may want to make one small change. In her Note to Nishkid, Sagbliss / Bruker put her true e-mail next to her user name (3rd paragraph from the top). There's little doubt as to her identity now. While it's a self inflicted release of personal information, I think its in everyone's interest to remove it ASAP. Bruno23 23:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

When a user chooses to identify themselves, that's their right. If they want it redacted, I'm more than happy to do it. As far as I know, Sagbliss has never made any attempt to hide her identity, there's no real need to remove it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My (KWSN's) RFA

Thank you for supporting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

DC meetup #3

Interested in meeting-up with a bunch of your wiki-friends? Please take a quick look at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 3 and give your input about the next meetup. Thank you.
This automated notice was delivered to you because you are on the Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite. BrownBot 01:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: nom

You never replied.--Tasc0 00:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I know you don't like users creating new threads to reply. But I thought you would like to know that I requested an editor review.--Tasc0 06:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Although the voting ended at 36/22/5, there was no consensus to promote, and the RfA was unsuccessful. I would like the thank you nonetheless for supporting me during the RfA, and hope that any future RfA’s proceed better than this one did. Again, I thank you for your support. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thanks for your support with respect to my request for adminship, which successfully closed today with a count of 47 support, 1 oppose. If you ever see me doing anything that makes you less than pleased that you supported my request, I hope to hear about it from you. See you around Wikipedia! Accounting4Taste 05:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Great Quote

Wikipedia is a strange bird, that works in practice, though not in theory.

— Swatjester

Bravo. /Blaxthos 14:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't take credit for it. It's been said many times that Wikipedia cannot work in theory, only in practice. I will, however take credit, for the strange bird part! Thanks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I, too, am a student of law. I often grapple with the concepts (and practices) learned regarding corpus juris and how Wikipedia differs. I do believe that Wikipedia could take a lot from stare decisis (most importantly, it would heavily trend us towards consistancy -- something we often lack), but I believe that your answer is correct and fair. It's pretty much what I would have said in the same circumstance. Thanks again for taking the time. /Blaxthos 15:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Completely off topic, but your talk page doesn't render correctly in my IE window (IE6)... the spinny barnstar (which I believe is supposed to be above Awards text, renders a few lines down and to the right. Could be something on my system... /Blaxthos 15:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Upgrade to firefox or IE7? I'm terrible with coding, and this page is borrowed from other users, so I wouldn't know how to fix it. Also, glad to see another law student here.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 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 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Taking you up on your RfA nom offer

(rescued from archive) I've thought about it, and I'd like to give it a go. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your generous comments. I'd like you to have a look at my answers before it "goes live": e.g. are links to Sisyphus#"Sisyphean task" or "Sisyphean challenge" and Augeas in my answer to Q1 appropriate, or are these metaphors excessive? Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 02:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(new post) You may not have seen this message, or you may have been too busy. In any case, there's no rush - family reasons mean that it'll probably be difficult to be running for admin in the next week or so as I wouldn't be able to guarantee being able to check for, and reply to, questions posed. Let me know if you think there are any improvements I can make to the answers or other points I should address. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 15:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Right-oh, no problem. Thanks again. Bencherlite^Talk 15:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks! Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed with 54 supports, 2 opposes and 3 neutrals. Thanks for your support, I really appreciate it. I hope to exceed expectations, If you have any advice please feel free to let me know. Thanks again!. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤

Thank you for the nomination!. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 15:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 01:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Canadian, but I appreciate it. Thanks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

RfA

In case you didn't get the email I sent on Friday, this is now live. So far, so good... Bencherlite^Talk 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My response to your comments

Your comments to me:

Please review our policy on Biographies of living people. You've recently made several edits in which you strongly criticize or make accusations against living people without providing sources. This is unacceptable per wikipedia policy. I think you may have the wrong idea about what Wikipedia is. This is an encyclopedia, this is not a soapbox to speak for murder victims. You cannot state that people are accused of committing a crime, or refer to them as suspects, without providing sources. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless I know specifics of what you're talking about, then your comments above can't be interpretated properly.--MurderWatcher1 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

My (Remember the dot)'s RfA

I never thanked you for participating in my RfA a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your support, though unfortunately the request was closed as "no consensus". I plan to run again at a later time, and I hope you will support me again then.

Thanks again! —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Griot

Thank you, I was concerned about User:Griot uncivil behavior, which this user instigated on User talk:IttyBittyGrittyindaShteCiti. Please proffer a warning to this user on my behalf to cease such activities. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. IttyBittyGrittyindaShteCiti 11:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

His incivility was borderline and quite minor, which does not excuse your own.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO, this user's incivility was neither minor nor borderline, WP:BITE, WP:AGF, etc. Furthermore, incivility is incivility, regardless of its degree. As you felt it necessary to issue a warning to me, and in the interest of impartiality and maintaining a civil environment on Wikipedia, I think it would be proper to issue a warning to this user. Especially as this user instigated the incivility. You otherwise send a message that Wikipedia is a one-way street and that preferential treatment is given to certain users. Such a policy will no doubt lead to a breakdown of order and in rule enforcement. Thank you for your ongoing assistance, IttyBittyGrittyindaShteCiti 02:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I send no such message. As a matter of fact I rather dislike Griot. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That is irrelevant! You're involved, and as an admin identified as one who settles disputes. You gotta nail this guy, or he'll go on like he does! I don't like filing, but it's part of my job. Do yr job, man! Otherwise, it only serves to diminish yr authority. Go man, go! IttyBittyGrittyindaShteCiti 02:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You are grievously mistaken. I am not involved, and I do not "gotta nail" anyone. I'm a volunteer, I don't have to do a job, and I don't have "authority" beyond that of the Wikipedia Community. You might want to review what exactly it is that we do here, and why you so badly want another user punished, which is something that we do NOT do on Wikipedia. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! Then I'll simply disregard your notice. Thanks! IttyBittyGrittyindaShteCiti 03:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You can do as you wish, but I already consider you having been warned. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)