User talk:Swatjester/archive15

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Swatjester. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You should stop

Excuse me it you who is doing vandalism. I created a page Deck 13 which created popular games. What is the reason for the deletion?. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You improperly removed speedy deletion tags, as well as tried to justify it by inserting text referring to a different company. That's right around the time you vandalized the Call of Duty 4 article. I'll ask you to stop again, or I'll block you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about. How is adding {{clr}} a vandalism?. Iam aligning to make room for references. I removed speedy delete from Deck 13 because it is a popular company. The article would grow overtime. This article exist in german wikipedia. Why can't it exist english wikipedia?. You should stop making threats too. You are judging me wrongly of vandalism. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's adding a massive blank space template at the bottom where one is not needed. The references are already aligned. As for the speedy delete removal, that was completely inappropriate. You removed it from an article you created instead of using the {{hangon}} template. And then included text from Firaxis Games, instead of for Deck 13, with no assertion of notability.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes i did add firaxis text. I was working on creating the article and translating the german article. Before i could commence the article was deleted. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/68.39.174.238

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/68.39.174.238? There is an IP user who insists on editing the "No" votes of three other users and keeps moving them from "No" to "Neutral". You have reverted him once and I have reverted him twice. I tried to explain to him, both on his talk page and on the talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/68.39.174.238 that editing other people's recorded votes is inappropriate, but he insists on doing it. I am not sure how to proceed next... Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism...

Exactly what have I vandalized? Just about all I've been doing in the past few weeks is expanding infoboxes on TV station articles. New World Man (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Continuously removing categories and inter-wiki's at Nicktropolis.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Those categories and interwikis are relevant to Nickelodeon (TV channel), not to Nicktropolis. That's why I removed them in the first place. New World Man (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not all of them were, the categories were relevant, and the interwikis, in lack of a better translation, were good. You should not have removed them. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro-ana

Hi there. I noticed you undid my large edit on pro-ana a little while ago. Was this because I clobbered something by mistake? —80.237.187.34 (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

More copyediting reasons than anything else. It made some awful grammar changes, put too much info on pro-mia that didn't belong there in the lede, and it was written (perhaps unintentionally) in an overly pro-ana POV, which we can't allow. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole pro-mia article was itself just a rehash of this article's lede, so now that it's been simply cut-and-pasted onto the end of this one, it did look a little odd and redundant. I wanted to merge that into the lede. I think that makes sense, since pro-mia and pro-ana are sometimes used interchangeably and pro-mia article redirects here.

As for the grammar and copyediting: I'll try again, but break up the edits into several smaller ones. Perhaps you should include your rationale for reverting in the edit summary next time?

—80.237.187.34 (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the point is that Pro-mia does not belong at all in a lede for an article on pro-ana. It's merged into the article, and could perhaps be better done so, but it doesn't need to be in the lede. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

deleted/protected page

Is it possible for the Seven Society, Order of the Crown and Dagger page to be restored? If so, how? I am an alumni member of the group. There were several nonmembers attempting to put false information on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldominion (talk • contribs) 15:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As I've told you before, the consensus of editors on this project was that the page be deleted.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your statements at the Blanket clemency AFD

A Google search shows fewer than 2500 hits on this term, nearly 90% of which refer to Ryan's mass commutation of death sentences in Illinois, and are mostly from news accounts. Of the remaining 300 or so, virtually none of which are from legal sources (and show no consistent meaning). Could you provide some citations from legal sources for this rather strange assertion? Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

According to Westlaw:

Simpson v. Battaglia, 458 F.3d 585, (Ill.), August 11, 2006
Henderson v. Briley, 54 F.3d 907, C.A.7, January 16, 2004
Ballard v. Pierce, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1980195, N.D.Ill., July 11, 2006 (NO. 06 C 711)
Ballard v. Pierce, Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1519580, N.D.Ill., May 30, 2006 (NO. 06 C 711)

⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

See also 56 Stan. L. Rev. 1307 ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied to you on my talk page, to keep discussion in one place. -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent.2C_serious_personal_attacks_by_User:PetraSchelm. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikimood

Hi Swatjester, I saw you were a bit upset and I just wanted to wish you a nice day, and thank you for your tireless contributions. It's a beautiful day where I am and I'm going to go outside for a bike ride. I don't know what the weather's like in DC, maybe a cup of tea is more appropriate there? :) Jfire (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh that? That's old. My Wikimood is fine ;) I'll change it to something more accurate. The Weather in DC is kind of meh today. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's now "Calm". ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tibet

I smell POV-pushing even by administrators. Please check contribution history, the {fact} tab was added on March after someone intentionally removed the citation. I already showed on Talk:Tibet#Grunfield_souce that the source is NPOV, and the remover gave me no reply.

Even if it is really unsourced, wasn't it too early remove the whole content as the {cn} tab was just added few weeks ago?219.79.252.210 (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also suggested replacing the said introduction paragraphs by a short one with NPOV wording. See Talk:Tibet#article's_introduction and feel free to discuss. 219.79.252.210 (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Help, please

Dear Swatjester, Thank you for the work you've done with maintaining Wikipedia sites as an admin. I've seen recently that you, or some of your fellow editors, have deleted a page regarding the Seven Society, Order of the Crown & Dagger, from the College of William and Mary in Virginia. I'm writing to ask you to please restore the page. As a student at the College, I've received messages from this group since I was a sophomore and I can speak to the groups relevance on campus and the high regard to which students hold it. The group is well known for it's banners supporting campus events and for it's public showing of support for campus leaders. I've been monitoring the site and I've seen some vandalism back and forth lately, no doubt from members of other groups or people not affiliated with the Sevens. Frankly, and with supreme honesty, I can say that this group is the most visible and pertinent of all secret societies on the W&M campus, with members like Earl Gregg Swem (our campus library is named after him) and Walter J. Zable (our football stadium is named after him). I'm writing to ask you to restore the page and put it on a protected status so that others can appreciated the knowledge of the good work this group does. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. I'm aware of the work you've done and thankful for your assistance with this.

-W&M1693 —Preceding unsigned comment added by W&M1693 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Kuntan?

You might want to redact that, and mumble a sheepish apology. I'd be interested to know where you picked up the idea, though. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:SSP, under your name. I"ve nothing to apologize for. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you don't feel even vaguely apologetic for a random accusation born of an obvious misreading of a sock report, there's nothing much I can do.... Has it occurred to you yet that if I was an incarnation of a banned user, I wouldn't still be frolicking 'round the noticeboards?

That's happened before. Mind you, I had never seen you before until I saw your name yesterday in that SSP report.

Mind you, it was a joke, but your response is a little irritating. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I accept your apology, sir. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you papa bear.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Mario1987

Hi, I just saw that you unblocked Mario1987. I am disappointed that you did so without making any preconditions. I will give him vandalism warnings as soon as he creates another inaccurate and incomplete football article without doing any basic research. There was consensus to do this at WP:FOOTY (before he was blocked) because it is disruptive, and and he absolutely failed to respond to any constructive criticism or advice on his talkpage carrying on regardless. Perhaps you didn't see the backlog of poorly referenced, misleading and inaccurate articles he rushed out. Only 20% of them have been fixed/deleted so far. I am also rather surprised that he basically got away with such obvious sockpuppetry. English peasant 08:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There were conditions. The conditions were that this was his last chance, and if he screws up again, he's blocked for good. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I would have liked one of the conditions to be to fix the hundreds of crap misleading articles that he created so that Jogurney and I don't have to do them all, no-one else has helped a jot. There's probably hundreds of hours of research and editing time needed to bring them up to some kind of reasonable standard, and Mario will be off creating dozens more for us to fix as soon as he realises he can, instead of fixing the junk he's already made. But I don't think anyone cares that Jogurney and I will have to spend so much of our editing time fixing Marios borderline content, instead of creating our own properly researched, referenced and categorised articles. English peasant 08:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Latham & Walkins

Hi there,

I noticed you removed the Scientology section from the Latham and Walkins page citing an OTRS complaint? I was wondering if I should re-add the section or not, as it appeared to be more-or-less properly cited at its last point of existence. (I've since made some copyedits, but I have not re-added the section at this time.) I'm afraid this is the first time I've heard of OTRS so I'm not sure of the procedures.

PS: Ignore the retired thing on my page for now :P Logical2u (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not re-add it. The section had inadequate references, highly POV terms ("harassed" etc.) and was inappropriate in general for the Latham and Watkins article. For info on OTRS, please see m:OTRS.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, sorry that this is so Stream of Consciousness-esque... I'm wondering if there's perhaps some sort of compromise (Or a NPOV) available for the article. Radar online did do two pieces on the letters (including mentioning that it did come from them, at least in name), and there seems to be a growing snowball effect of coverage of the Anonymous protests, etc. (As the comments below undoubtedly show!) [I figured after going through OTRS some more than I should not re-add them, as well.] However, we do have two sources from Radar (plus several accounts on various forums regarding recipients) talking about the firm sending (if not delivering, it seems, in many cases) the letters. Plus pictures of various letters which corroborate the stories (although I doubt they're GNU/free/whatever it is, plus veracity is impossible on the internet). My only concern is that while yes, the section was POV, theremight be some middle ground for discussion and/or inclusion. As in, a[n official] statement from L&W about them, etc, combined with Radar's quotes about them? Using both point-of-view in unison to talk about the point. (Off topic: Should we copy/paste this to the talk page?... Also I put my reply before the IP guy, hopefully he/she doesn't mind, continuity bugs me) Logical2u (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

those 'highly POV' terms were a recent edit - the item could have been returned to NPOV with a quick revert of the last edit. A handful of editors contributed to making it NPOV - please revert your removal of this section, and work with us to ensure NPOV and full citation etc. 'Inappropriate in general' I would strongly contest. (NB - can probably ignore my addition below now - leaving in for context) 219.89.194.217 (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi - can you please explain rationale for recent edits to remove CoS references from L&W page?

This has received magazine coverage, is ongoing, and is notable. L&W clients, and those with an interest in L&W are likely to also be interested in the information you removed. No explanation was provided on the Discussion page, just OTRS # 2008040810016483 in your comment, and I understand that OTRS requests are confidential - so that note tells us nothing about why it was removed.

That leaves an assumption of 'because L&W didn't like it' - and I'm sure (hope) there's more to it than that.

More than prepared to consider this in the scope of WP policies, but need the rationale to justify it. For context: http://forums.enturbulation.org/15-breaking-news/anonymous-hate-crimes-packets-distributed-houston-9-april-2008-a-8212/2/

Thanks 219.89.194.217 (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot discuss the content of OTRS complaints, however the content was inappropriate for the L+W article. The stories may be true, and they may be appropriate on the Scientology controversies articles (maybe), but not the L+W article. As for the content of the material removed, it just was not well enough sourced, and not NPOV in either content or undue weight.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"the content was inappropriate for the L+W article" - please attempt to provide at least SOME rationalle for that statement - currently it's just YOUR POV, which is not convincing right now; you are making no references to WP policy. I will revert back that section shortly UNLESS you can provide either convincing rationale or WP: basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.167.205 (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

... and can we have that discussion on the article's talk page please.

As I told you I cannot. If you revert it, I will semi-protect the page. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Frogman

Please discuss with me any alterations that you plan for the page Frogman. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? Why not just make them? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Conradine?

Conradine dynasty is back; I don't know on what basis you judged it as a hoax, and I'm reluctant to do the same myself without more data. Up to you. DS (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's in ok form at the moment. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

== Mens Room Radio Program == Why are you changing the article and removing what the cast of the show read on air live, when they said it was accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Machineking1313 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

I just saw you opining on the battlegrounds... way to go! Tvoz |talk 17:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the User:Filll/AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That was fun. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter

The Terrorism WikiProject
April 2008 Newsletter

News

1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack was made a Featured Article
Omar Khadr has an ongoing peer review as it begins the slow crawl towards Featured Article status

Trials have begun this month in the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Benbrika affair and 2006 Toronto terrorism case, each article could use a good vetting, and the articles on specific alleged terrorists are desperately in need of some clean-up.
Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein had his case overturned by the Iraqi courts and was ordered released, although the US military says they will not release him.
China announced that they had disrupted a plot targeting the 2008 Summer Olympics, while detractors claim it was fabricated.
The bail hearing for Abdullah Khadr, fighting extradition to the United States, is scheduled for April 29
Former Turkish Member of Parliament Leyla Zana is sentenced to two years imprisonment for praising Abdullah Öcalan.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list needs votes on whether or not it should be kept on Wikipedia.

Archives • Discussion

Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Honey and Vinegar

As per your comments on my Talk Page: I will state that while your comments regarding Wikipedia communications may have been intended as a sincere effort to maintain civility, it was nonetheless perceived as a "cut it out or I will personally block you from editing" threat. For my efforts in managing professional and vocational environments, I've always found that it easier to bring about desired results by using diplomatic language and a positive encouragement, rather than bluntly calling people to task (even if they are acting in a problematic manner). Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that you Dan? It's "Shadow" aka "Peregrine_Falcon" from WaW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowSix (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm

I'm leaving Wikipedia for a few weeks as a result of PetraSchelm's methods -- see here, for example: Talk:List_of_books_portraying_sexual_attraction_to_children_or_adolescents. She has massively disrupted the entry, unilaterally. She mischaracterizes that page's history, and other editor's comments. She implies that anyone who disagrees with her is pro-pedophile and disruptive. She refuses to acknowledge genuine controversy (over the meaning of "pedophilia"). And ironically she now accuses others of "soapboxing".

If you decide to block her again, I won't come to her defense. Thanks for reacting firmly to her previous unpleasant behavior. Subsequent events suggest to me that you were clearly right to do so. SocJan (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know your situation, but I hope you come back when you feel ready. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm not sure what to do about this account, which I noticed on RC patrol. One contrib: adding "almost" somewhere it plainly wasn't helpful. After my warning, no further contribs (unless there are some deleted ones). Did I nip in the bud a vandalism-only account, or did I just bite a newbie? I don't have enough experience of this to know what to do next, and I don't have the tools to do anything... other than refer it to an admin. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither. You used a standard template to tell a new editor that their edit was reverted, gave them links to how to edit constructively, and invited them to talk to you if there were questions. I don't think you scared him off, nor do I think he was a vandal only account. Honestly, he probably made the one contrib, closed his browser and won't check it again for weeks (and may not ever check the user talk page). Don't kick yourself, you didn't do anything wrong.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the perspective. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Using the word "Ignorant"

As per your comments on my Talk Page: Please don't template the regulars is, according to that page, an "essay" and "not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." And using the word "ignorant" to in the course of a debate is designed strictly to demean other people. Please refrain from making comments that are not intended to encourage a positive discussion. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As per your comments on my Talk Page: “So, if a person were to say something in a deletion debate that "black people are inferior" that would not be an ignorant statement? It does not mean that the person is ignorant, but their statement is ignorant.”

The answer: A statement which is not supported by any reputable scientific facts (as in your hypothetical case, a declaration of one race’s inferiority to other races) would certainly be considered ignorant; in the case you cited, a stronger word would be justified. However, no one made such a statement and your example is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.

You used the word “ignorant” to challenge concerns of whether a particular medical professional possesses a specific level of notability within his field and, thus, would qualify for Wikipedia coverage. You asserted that opinions that differed from yours in regard to this issue are “ignorant.”

However, no irrefutable facts have been presented (either by you or any other Wikipedia editor) to uphold your opinion as the be-all/end-all statement of fact. And you seem to forget that you are strictly stating an opinion, not a fact; the deletion article is an exchange of opinions to build a consensus on an article’s value, not a challenge to irrefutable facts about Dr. Klein's value to both his profession and this web site.

A friendly exchange would’ve found you stating that the rival view was “mistaken” or “off-base” – with those words, you would’ve acknowledged a disagreement, added your view that the rival opinion is lacking, and refrained from creating ill will with poisonous language – few linguists consider “ignorant” to be a positive word.

Opinions do not exist in their own space and energy – they are an extension of individual’s personality, mind and passion. In this case, they are an individual’s entry into what is supposed to be a mature conversation that will enrich the Wikipedia content base. You are not insulting an abstract concept; you are insulting a person by insulting how he thinks and how he expresses himself.

I would not be offended if someone said my opinions were "mistaken," but I take serious offense when someone says my opinions are "ignorant." Whether you intended to create ill will and intentionally demean a rival view is something I cannot determine. That you are deaf to the concerns raised by your choice of verbiage is something I cannot understand. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for butting in uninvited, but there seems to be a misunderstanding here. Calling someone "ignorant" does not imply an insult to "how he thinks or how he expresses himself"; it simply means that he does not know something. I'm taking this page off my watchlist now. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No apologies needed, S.S. -- but your definition of "ignorant" is wonky. Scope out this page: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorant -- the word goes somewhat beyond "does not know," and the negativity associated with it is not pleasant. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In my field, ignorance is not treated with negative connotations, but rather is simply the lack of knowledge. My apologies if you take it to be negative, as that's not my intention. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

...And since Eecoleetage deleted my comment off his talk page, I make free to repeat myself here (repetition being the mother of learning): Ignorance is lack of knowledge, not an insult. You seem, I am sorry to say, ignorant of the meaning of the word itself, Ecoleetage. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the dicdef(s). I myself am ignorant of many things, as is everyone - no one can know everything. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In my field, the lack of knowledge is the opportunity to bring a new insight with a positive message. There are empowering ways of alerting people to their lack of knowledge, but that's another story. In any event, don't feel bad -- at least you didn't say I was "bitter"! Ecoleetage (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ze blog

cool...what did you mean by deeplink? xenocidic (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I was reading some other site, which linked to a second site, which linked to a third site, which linked to your blog. i.e. I didn't know about it and just stumbled across it, not through google. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

ahh...cool! glad to see that it's getting some exposure out there in the webbish wide world =) xenocidic (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Chiropratric

I don't know if you noticed but you made this edit after the page was protected. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice. My revert was reverting vandalism though, so it doesn't matter whether it was protected or not. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually glad you're witnessing this stuff, Swatjester. This is the kind of tendentious editing that frequently occurs at Chiropractic. Myself or some other editor will make an edit with full and appropriate citations, a seemingly random editor (i.e. they were nowhere to be found on the Talk page) will swoop in, blindly revert and cite WP:NPOV. After investigation it turns out that a lot of the times the reverter is an editor who is a medical doctor (for example, look at the contribs of User:OrangeMarlin on April 17/08 for a perfect illustration of this. It's a complete gong show with skeptics trying to silence scientific proponents of CAM. CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic#Scope_of_practice_comments_by_Eubulides Read this section. You did not revert vandalism. You reverted to the POV version. When it is up to Wikipedia's standard it will be restored. There is no rush. Agreed? QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru, respectfully, as one of the parties involved, you're in no position to be determining with a clear mind whether it's POV. The fact is, it's well sourced, and supported by the references, and does not give undue weight, and is decidedly not POV by any legitimate standard. You don't simply remove a huge, sourced tract of information without a clear consensus. That's absolutely disruptive, and that IS something blockable. Got it? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=206553740 Can you explain this false accusation of vandalism. I did not delete or blank the Scope of practice section at all. Why are you accusing me a blanking text when I did not. QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Had you confused with OrangeMarlin there. My apologies. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

All this time you thought I was edit warring and blanking text. I think you assumed I blanked the text because I reported it to the noticeboard. Anyways, I hope you keep or add this article to your watchlist. Your help is very much appreciated. The article has been a war zone for many years. Blanking entire sections is a normal practice for this article. But that is not something I do. I agree with you that it is blockworthy if an editor removes well sourced NPOV text. The draft is being currently worked on. The POV issues will soon be fixed and the text restored. Hopefully, it will be completed before the article is unprotected. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Swatjester, QG will do and say anything to make chiropractic and chiropractors (and proponents) look bad. It's been his MO since day 1. His continued misrepresentation of the Scope of Practice section as "POV" or "poorly sourced" insults you and my intelligence. Not to mention that I believe QG is engaged in wikistalking behaviour as where I post he seems to follow within 15-20 minutes. Being relatively new to the project, I can't cite if that's some kind of violation of some kind of behavioural guidelines but I'm getting quite frustrated with it. CorticoSpinal (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Without passing any judgment on the previous posts you've both made here, you two will not fight each other here. Talk to me, about things relevant to me. Not to each other, or about things not relevant to my position here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. 1) what do you propose we do and 2) do you feel that there's something potentially untoward going on with respect to blanking a NPOV section that occurred? CorticoSpinal (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There are still some POV issues that need to be fixed before the Scope of practice is restored. Agreed? QuackGuru (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I don't think there are. You might be able to get a compromise edit or such but the substance of that section looks neutral. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Eleemosynary IP

SWATJester: You probably want to protect the talkpage of that Eleemosynary IP that you recently blocked. I've reverted some vandalism there a few times, but he will likely continue to re-add. You may want to get some of it oversighted as well. Might be time to either get a formal community block on him or at minimum contact the place of work linked to his primary IP and report abuse.79.74.71.135 (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Photo-Me International

22:29, 4 April 2008 Swatjester (Talk | contribs) deleted "Photo-Me International" ‎ (per OTRS ticket # 2008040410014563)

I note as above that you deleted Photo-Me International a page that I have watched and contributed to for some time. I do not understand OTRS etc and wonder if you could enlighten me. Photo Me must be a notable company by any standard as the world's leading supplier and operator of photobooths and so I do not understand why you deleted it. Thanks. Paste (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not hopeful of a reply as you ignored my last message but now I see you are saying that 'you need to directly cite these statements, not simply add links'. What does that mean? Paste (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to add criticisms of the company, you must directly cite them, not simply at external links without tying them to a certain statement.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As for OTRS, please see m:OTRS. Since OTRS tickets are confidential, I cannot give you the information as to the content of the ticket, however. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

- I see this is starting to make sense now as someone had been adding rather contentious sentences to the previous article. Not me I hasten to add, albeit I know most of them to be accurate. Why did you not just remove them and leave the article? Deleting the article removed all the good work along with the bad. Thanks anyway for replying.Paste (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the negative information removed it from the history as well, and in its previous form the article was basically unusable. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Hater

It was User:Well Hater who called the other user a fucking bitch. NOT ME --Wellwater Conspiracy (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Okay

O Rly? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Burying the hatchet

SJ, I just want to fully move on from whatever battles we have had in the past. I don't usually harbor ill-will for more than 10 minutes (unless in the case of anti-Semitism, which lasts a lot longer), but I really was pissed off at you during the ArbCom thing with Jim's battle with VO. I might have been sensitive to the issue that my service in the US Navy was demeaned (not really by you, but others). Now that I know you're an MoT and ex-servicemen, we have a lot more in common than not. Anyways, I might still disagree with you strongly on any number of stances you might have (and you me). But if I might offer virtual handshake, I hope you'll accept. Besides, there's a lot of cleaning up to do around here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no hatchet to bury, so consider your virtual handshake accepted. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good grief! 75.172.37.237 (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And your point is??? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok now I'm confused. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

106 & Park

When he said "exhaustive list" what did he mean?

---Piazzajordan2 22:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What it is now. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Yeah ok so I'm two days late... Mea culpa. Hope it was great! KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4

Any comments you have about location would be appreciated. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Working group

I don't actually live in the DC area. --Jnelson09 (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Law Enforcement Barnstar Proposal Poll

Hello there Swatjester/archive15,

We here at Wikiproject Law Enforcement are currently in the process of deciding wither or not to make this WikiProject Law Enforcement's official Barnstar award. Being that you are a member of Wikiproject Law Enforcement, we are humbly asking you to voice your opinion here about our new Barnstar.

Thank You and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

--Mifter (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from NYC

Glad to see your work with Wikipedia:Wikimedia DC. You can see our page at meta:Wikimedia New York City, and our meetings are cataloged at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC and our archive pages (we started organizing as a chapter in November). Our first real outreach project was Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. My advice on meetups is here. I'd also suggest you contact other local groups such as Free Culture Georgetown, Free Culture Virginia Tech (if that's not too far), Internet Society of Greater Washington DC (if anyone still answers their e-mail), and the DC office of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Good luck!--Pharos (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Thanks for the message I have taken on board what you have said. Christopher140691 (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

2 wrong edits is hardly enough to remove the rollback access is it? Christopher140691 (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that the above is stated correctly and that his rollback access should be given back. He should be taught how to use it not have it taken off him. Like every new user they need to be introduced the method not have it taken off them That normally leads to personal attacks or vandalism. Chubbennaitor 17:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not how rollback works. It's easily given and easily taken away. He can learn how to revert properly using the manual tools, rather than the rollback button. I should mention there are not just "2 wrong edits", but that's 2 within the last 50 today. I'm sure if I took the time to dig, I could find others, but that's not the point. The point is the use he is doing of it is disruptive. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you took it in the wrong way- I was simply saying that he should have a second chance to learn more about the tool. The Guettrada thing I had discovered she/he was under fire from other editors and give him/her support because the one thing I hate is when someone retires because of the hassle. Don't take this badly but you need to think more about what you say and actually take things in before expressing your views because then you might have a more nuetral view about things. As I believe part of the Bible tells us. Forgive people but let them know how you made them feel by a small note and get on with it. Please, take this in a calm view and not a strong and over the top one like some people do not aimed at you. Nothing I have said was to insult you. Chubbennaitor 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Bible does not tell me anything. Much of what you are saying applies to yourself as well. In two years of editing here, I've learned my areas of deficiency. I hope that you will do so as well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I request the rollback again and if I mess it up again then you can revoke it for ever. Is that a deal or not? Christopher140691 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You can request rollback anytime you want, at the request page. Considering two other admins decided to deny it there, I'd suggest that you just keep editing for a while and then request it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If he abides the use of it well I can't see the problem with giving it back and taking the deal. Oh and it depends on beliefs but the Bible thing comes into everyones daily lives. I'm not a vicar. Chubbennaitor 19:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actions

Honestly, I was shocked by what you did. I still don't understand it. My gut says that you aren't that kind of person. Your actions said otherwise. I was very disappointed and deeply saddened by what you did. I'm not at all invested in most people around here - I have no sense of them as people. But there are a lot of people that you feel you know and that you have some respect for. And while I have disagreed with you on occasion, up until that point I had some respect for you and thought I knew you. I'm still puzzled, I still don't know what to make of what you were doing. I do know that Richard was stalked and threatened. So I know that your allegation that he was a liar when he said so was false. Irrelevant, of course, since we let people delete their user page for no reason. But also false.

I find your actions that do to be inconsistent with your actions in general here. But lacking any other explanation, I can only assume that that's also who you are. Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think my block was fair on its merits, but I was the wrong person to make the block (although, at the time, it didn't occur to me - I didn't realise I was undoing your deletion, since I got there via an email from SB, asking me to delete his page and explaining why). It wasn't on my mind until I saw your very personally focussed comments on ANI. My reaction shows that I have neither forgiven nor forgotten. But past is past - we all make mistakes (I believe you made one, you believe I made one, but hey, we're in agreement that someone made a mistake. The rest is commentary.) Anyway, KC likes you, so who am I to differ? I know your heart is in the right place. Guettarda (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm

Hi, Swatjester. Could you please consider laying off Petra for a while - she's been the only editor on the ground so far that's been dealing with the recent spate of disruptive TOR IPs and throwaway accounts registered from and editing on TOR. Dmcdevit and I have both been very busy trying to root out all of this guy's accounts - personally, I think it might be ArbCom-banned editor Voice of Britain, who returned at the same time this nasty new TOR sockmaster ramped up his efforts. east.718 at 06:09, May 6, 2008

And that privileges her to push her POV in what way? I could care less about her working to stop the TOR IP, that's fine, but she needs to stop being disruptive on pedophilia articles, something that she's done from the very start of her most recent tenure here (excluding any prior accounts she more than likely had before starting). Your efforts might be better spent suggesting to Petra to stop editing pedophilia articles to fit her point of view. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

She isn't entitled to push any sort of POV, just like any other editor isn't; however I'd be pleased if we provided a little more support to lone editors who are dealing with waves of sockpuppets from banned users coordinating offsite. If you've got any evidence that PetraSchelm isn't this user's first account, please email either myself, Dmcdevit, or Ryan Postlethwaite with anything you've got. Thanks, east.718 at 06:24, May 6, 2008

The evidence is clear from the very first days of her editing, when she instantly dove into deletion debates and pro-pedophile activism articles, citing esoteric policies, and knowledge of our admin procedures. Her decision to deal with waves of sockpuppets, while admirable, does not excuse the severity of her other behavior, and as such, I cannot support it. There are always other editors to help deal with sockpuppet waves, either at AN/I, on AIV, IRC, etc. You can always protect the relevant articles etc. There are other options, rather than choosing to overlook her behavior simply because she simultaneously makes good edits. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but 1) I was cleared by the checkuser you asked for 2) I haven't just made good edits, I massively upgraded the child pornography article and added considerable references to it (with Jack-A-Roe) 3) the PAW mentors are dealing with the socks so we can minimize drama 'n' disruption by keeping the reports off AN/I 4) we did semi-protect The Child Protection Act of 1978, but semi-protection is always less than ideal solution, I'm told, so haven't requested semi for child pornography, etc. 5) I'm not sure what your problem with me is, but it does seem rather venomous and personal. Like, for example, don't you owe me an apology for accusing me of defacing my own userpage with a Nazi flag when it was obviously done by a sock?...-PetraSchelm (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You were not cleared by the checkuser. The result was "no obvious sockmaster found", however that does not at all mean you were cleared. Your misrepresentations are telling: I never accused you of defacing your own userpage. I noted that the userpage was defaced. Your "quotation marks" are quoting something that I did not say. Stay on the straight and narrow, and you'll have no problems. Keep being disruptive and manipulative, and you'll be blocked. It's that simple.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

They're italics for emphasis, not "quotation marks." And it did seem to me that you were strongly implying I did that myself. Let's also be clear that you accused me in your checkuser request of "being familiar with the desysop policy," but that I never said anything about de-sysoping you, and in fact did not pursue any dispute resolution whatsoever; I just stayed away from you/worked on the encyclopedia. I understand that you may have some strong feelings about an organization called "perverted justice," but I'm a graduate student, not a "vigliante," and I have nothing whatsoever to do with that organization.-PetraSchelm (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not claimed you ever did. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Petra's disruption hasn't been limited to the paedophilia articles. She stalked me to Hystero-epilepsy, where I had restored a valid external link (to Skeptic's Dictionary), and reverted 4 times.[2] She admitted on my complaint at the fringe theory noticeboard that her motivation for this wasn't that she actually cared, but that she hoped doing so would wear me down so I would quit "wikistalking Jack." (My edits by no means fit the definition of wikistalking. Hers certainly did.)

She's also continued to make thinly-veiled accusations of child abuser sympathy against established contributors,[3] in this case eleland.

Behaviour like this shows why Petra shouldn't be "laid off." A large portion of her edits are disruptive and noncontributory. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't even merit a response; but anyone who reads through the two dicussions on the fringe theories noticeboard can see that consensus is against AnotherSolipsist in both (and he's not happy about it).-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I remove content on my talk page when people are arguing back and forth with each other without addressing things to me. So keep that in mind. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: USMC

No problem. Mistakes like that happen on occasion, especially when you've been at it for a while without a break. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:TOV

Swat, you're not exactly a neutral party. You note to me was a personal one, not in your role of administrator. I view WP:TOV as a policy and will suggest to others that they do the same. Bstone (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV is not a policy, nor guideline, it is an essay. For you to suggest that it is policy is disruptive. I'd suggest you stop. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You will block me as I suggest people take threats serious? This is one for WP:LAME. Again, you are not a neutral party. Bstone (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I would block you for pretending an essay is policy, and trying to enforce it as such. And I am a neutral party here. It's not the case that someone who opposes you is not a neutral party. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

SWAT, you certainly not a neutral party here and I think you're losing whatever objectivity you have left. Please stop. Bstone (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

[4] Tiptoety ^talk 22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Your actions are reviewed on ANI here. Best regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries, its already over. I didn't even bother to comment. However, I will comment on something else - Swat, you have been spending WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much time at lolcats. Seriously. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there really such thing as too much time spent with lolcats? DigitalC (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of any.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

File:ANI lolcat.jpg

Continued Behaviour

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_pornography&action=history

A while ago, you gave her something of an ultimatum. 'Schelm appears to be doing virtually the same thing whilst gaming the 3RR in the process. She continues to insult IP editors and treat their edits as virtually meaningless "disruption". Maybe this should be discussed by others, but I personally do not see any value in this hardened and previously warned POV warrior. 82.25.179.169 (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Complete fabrications/harassment from an IP with two edits--one to the article about the Dutch pedophile party that has three members, one to this talkpage.-PetraSchelm (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Lolcatting people's complaints

I won't edit war over this again - please, though, stop adding lolcats. They are insulting to good faith users who are upset and bring a complaint to AN or ANI. They want something constructive being done, not mockery. Neıl ☎ 09:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And we'll agree to disagree here. I don't think they are insulting, and neither do quite a few others. Incidentally, if you'd like to further discuss the backstory behind the FBI cat image, Bstone, and the like, I'm on IRC right now. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be good if you could refrain from using them when someone is complaining about death threats. I think that's the worst one (Threat Cat) - could you dial that one down, at least? When it comes to receiving death threats, you might think the complainant has simply been trolled, they may well have been trolled, but it's not a pleasant thing to receive for many people. Yes, some of them might need to not take things so seriously, but immediately responding with a lolcat isn't the best way to calm the situation down. I don't use IRC. You can discuss it here, if you like, or email me. Neıl ☎ 10:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The point of IRC was to speed things up, but it's sort of a non-issue. I'll take your comments under consideration. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a start - thank you. Neıl ☎ 10:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Swatjester/lolcats

Epic. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Psst

The secret no-watermark version of rolfbot is at http://wigflip.com/roflbot/no-watermark. Neıl ☎ 10:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for protecting Club Penguin. The vandalism is just too much to handle PepsiPlunge13™ 13:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note. It is gratifying to learn that another editor has noticed my edits. Flatscan (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

the undertow

I thought you were just being sarcastic here. Then I checked out the diff. Why is this person still an admin? And what am I supposed to think of individuals who are want him to just get a peaceful time out? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if you people took the time to fucking read the link and the summary, you'd get it. What he said is that White pride and White supremacy are not the same. Something he'd been debating at the time with another user. The link, that you, SWAT, have ignorantly used as "evidence" of his alleged "supremacy" is actually detailing the fucking death of one of his good friends, a MEXICAN. That, FYI, is him letting everyone know that he's not a fucking white supremacist. Maybe you can go correct your libelous statement. Lara❤Love 06:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Tsk tsk. What a post. From one of our WP:Wikilove patrol and champions of political correctness, and warriors against unCIVIL discourse. What am I to think?--Filll (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

~~Go away. I don't need all you editors who spew your inaccurate bullshit trolling me.~~ I'm not on the Wikilove patrol. I dropped that template on someone's talk page a grand total of once. It was the_undertow's, and it was a joke. And I don't fight for WP:CIVIL. I think that it's overused and a bullshit policy for this type of project. People need to be able to express themselves. And in the words of a great editor, WP:CIVIL does not say you have the right to be unoffended. Too often that's how it's taken. Lara❤Love 12:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I struck through some. I need to chill out. I'm sorry. Lara❤Love 14:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Look there are things going on here that I do not understand. I realize your friend is going through a bad time. I believe that being under the influence of various controlled substances and suffering through the death of someone close can alter someone's behavior drastically. So I sympathize, with him and with you, but... --Filll (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

undertow two

It does appear that you've misread the intent, Swat. I strongly suggest you retract your statement on Rfar. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I have. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

ohhhh... Stormfront? I'll withdraw my comment, then. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue has been taken to AN. Lara❤Love 02:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Buddy

Hey, just speaking as a friend of yours, Lara's outbursts have been shameful and rather embarrassing, but your tone on AN is coming off as patronizing and flippant. Seeing as you just rightly helped bring attention to another user in regard to this, I'd like to just nudge you a bit to use some better word choice Swat :) -M^ask? 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Which parts were flippant and patronizing? I'll adjust them to not be so. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has battled you frequently in the past, let me say, "good job" all around. You know I'm a strong supporter of stomping out anti-semitism. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it requires correction, just avoidance. But since you asked, referring to her as a white pride person (irrespective of its truth) is not related to her complaint and is a nice example of the 'poisioning the well' logical fallacy. The 'e-boyfriend' remark appears to exist solely to goad her. I imagine your heated, but your in the right, so it's important not to give people an excuse to ignore you. -M^ask? 03:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I just woke up and see that this thread at WP:AN has been closed so I can't comment there futher (in any event I can see from Lara's response that my attempted civics lesson was quite futile). I don't know anything about this undertow business (nor do I want to find out), and I thought that some of your comments, like the 'e-boyfriend' one, were off base, but I found Lara's comments quite shocking. I understand WP:BATTLE and all that, but when some-one starts arguing with a straight face that 'white pride' is not a form of racism, they need to be taken to task in some way. So I am with you in this regard. Brrr-r-r. Disturbing, to say the least. Nsk92 (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. The education system has failed those people, spectacularly. El_C 12:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Our mission is educational and it is important that we do not let our readers down. One look att he white pride article made me think "these folk look like a bunch of rascists". Thanks, SqueakBox 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

When the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center both agree that white pride is a form of racism, I think I"m justified in trusting their opinions. Thanks for the support guys. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I've encountered enough racism in my life to be able to see it when it's rears it's ugly head. White Pride. White Power. Stormfront. KKK. Whatever, they all espouse the same thing, but just some of them market themselves a bit better than others. Whether these two actively or passively allow this racism to be promoted, it matters not, since the end effect is exactly the same. Whatever needs to be done here, should be done quickly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I just read it as well. I agree completely (EL C's comments on sophistry hit the point well). I am also glad you did not go back to that thread after the first couple of comments; just stopping by to suggest you make that your policy. Say your peace and move along. More threads may come up on this, given Lara's Userbox creation today. Ugg. Marskell (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, remember this? I was offended by a "jew" comment from a racist editor, and undertow supported him. When I realized he was an admin, I thought that this place had gone to hell. I'll be blunt, there are at least 100 diffs I could produce over the past 2 or 3 months from this person which indicates his racist leaning philosophy. Supporting his attitude is de facto supporting racism. Just calling it how I see it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As you know I disagreed with you plenty in the past, but I have to say I am behind you on this one.--Filll (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I had totally forgotten about that comment from the undertow during that whole row. Wow. Baegis (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - "All non-racists unite behind Swat!" can be our banner... or something like that. :-P (puppy is in a mood, sorry) KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

See, you even have a dog supporting you!--Filll (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A dog, a funny-colored fish, a tree, and Elsie the Wonder Admin. Not sure what a Fillll is (besides too darn many Ls.) KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Tree? Which one? And I am not funny colored. Go SU. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted you to know, I completely support your actions here. I've dealt with people like this in real life before as well, and though they spout off BS like that they invariably believe that because they can point to "white supremacists" they are not racist. Although I am shocked, I am sadly not at all surprised this made its way into WP, given the "controls" in place and the fact that it is so easy for like-minded people to group up. Amerique^dialectics 22:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is not going to turn out well for anyone, but I do applaud you for standing on principles and calling people out for such actions. It is laughable and supremely ignorant for anyone to believe there is a difference in these words. Carry on the good fight. Baegis (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI

WP:ANI#User:LaraLove's controversial userbox. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see this comment

[5]. I thought quite hard about that. I am no lover of racism, but I don't think that we need to impute motives. Please consider carefully what, if anything, might help to fix this argument and get Lara down off the ceiling. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't the best idea I've ever had. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Swat probably could have been more diplomatic, but in all honesty, there is no other way to confront these things other than directly and head on. I don't have any investment whatsoever in the specific conflict that lead to this, but once any form of "racial pride" gets voiced as a legitimate defense of someone's actions, on wiki or anywhere, in all honesty, my instinctive reaction is to go to war. I left a brief message on LL's talk page laying out the issues with "racial pride," in my opinion, with links to appropriate articles.[6] I could have left a lot more. So long as more critical consciousness of how race-based social dynamics and power structures operate in real life is raised as an outcome, I don't think this episode was entirely in vain, however costly and distressing it was to the people most involved. Everyone involved has my sympathy, if not my support. Regards to all, Amerique^dialectics 15:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Housekitten

File:Gatito tigre.jpg

Here is a Housekitten

Another pic from the collection, for services rendered. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh jesus - it's awful ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite 22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Errk, it was 2 days old, its healthy now and always was, mate. plus I think it is appropriate for SwatJester, y con todo corazon. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, it is rather cute I've got to say - might have to go and find a kitten now :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 22:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

SJ will make a good lolcat out of it, I would bet money. :-) -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I'm reminded of the Chipoll... El_C 03:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That lolcat would be a great vandal warning 2 template...-PetraSchelm (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:BIA

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:BIA. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bstone (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Report on DC meetup at our regional blog

Was originally posted on my user talk page; I let the editor know that you're a better source, and that I was posting this here. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If you would like to put a report about the meeting at our regional US Wikimedia chapters-in-formation blog Wiki Northeast, we'd be glad to have you. If you want, you can just e-mail me and I'll make a guest post under your name. BTW, thanks for the your books, which were great prizes at Wikipedia Takes Manhattan!--Pharos (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, emailed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, its posted there now.--Pharos (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Myspace?

Like I asked before, can a Myspace be used to give official credit? I'm talking about Cory Gunz's MySpace, the source of the debate. Could I use his or Lil Wayne's? I mean, they have to be reliable, they're official artists and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't lie about credits. Especially ones about a song. Cory Gunz's MySpace credits him as a featured artist. Genevieve-Tamerlaine (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Myspace is not a reliable source, so no. Furthermore, artists have been known to state things on their myspace that aren't the case and don't jive with other artist's pages. Given that there are several versions of this song, and that the statement is on cory gunz' page, not lil wayne's, it doesn't work.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, it says "Lil Wayne Ft. Cory", but that is next to the artwork. Genevieve-Tamerlaine (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Block of Malleus Fatuarum

There are some concerns regarding your block of Malleus Fatuarum on User talk:Malleus Fatuarum. Please comment. - auburnpilot talk 23:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and unblocked MF. While there have been plenty of times where it might have been appropriate to block him---he can be a real... um... he knows what he can be ;-) THERE ARE TIMES that he fully deserves to be blocked for civility reasons, but I do not feel that at this time it was appropriate. As the blocking admin was notified of this discussion and hasn't commented, I'm unblocking now.Balloonman (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh

"You'll note the blatant personal attack against ST47 that I removed from his userpage, as well as his recent incivility at WP:RFA, on my talk page, on ST47's talk page, etc" (from Malleus' talk page). Where's the attack you removed? Where's the incivility on this talk page? It'd help analyse the situation if this was pointed out—I for one can't find it anywhere. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, not on my talk page, on his own talk page. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

From MF's talk page.Balloonman (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I made the appropriate corrections to the locations on his talk page. That's what 3am gets me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncooperative behavior by PetraSchelm

Paedophilia is a sexual preference for children. Petra wishes it to be defined instead as including the act of child molestation. Despite the objections of myself, User:Jovin Lambton, User:Flyer22, User:Estemi, and User:MarionTheLibrarian, Petra has stated her intent to revert my version of the definition and ignore the justifications I have given for it.[7] I responded to this by seeking wider community input at the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. She says that this is a waste of time; she's "just going to revert" me regardless.[8]

Refusing to discuss content disputes in favour of steadfast reversion is incompatable with the spirit of a wiki. I don't see what else I can do besides participate in an edit war if she is allowed to do this. :/ --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Poor Swatjester, having to listen to this bs. As you aware, you lied about having consensus: [9] And what you have done is insert an unpublished dissertation into the lead of an article as a substitute for a medical dictionary, without any discussion, let alone consensus. You were advised to take it up at the RS board. You are also lying about how I define pedophilia--I'm all over the talkpage saying the defintion is complicated, and providing cites that are now included in the article explaining that there is an overlap between incestuous and nonincestuous molesters. And you're lying about why I said I would revert you--it has nothing to do with the defintion, only your substitution of an unpublished doctoral disseration in place of a much better source.-PetraSchelm (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mention consensus at all, though it's true that the weight of wiki-opinion supports my revision (five editors, including three who are not otherwise active on this topic, vs. the usual trio). "Unpublished" Ph.D dissertations are routinely cited in scientific studies and are acceptable on Wikipedia as reliable sources. Nevertheless, I requested further comment on the reliable sources noticeboard in case others disagree. I was not advised to do this; where'd you get that from?

The doctoral dissertation, btw, is supported by four other peer-reviewed sources. The focus on it is a red herring. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the focus on it is not a red herring--that's the whole focus. You inserted that dissertation with the claim that four editors agree with you, and that was a lie; you didn't even discuss it, let alone get anyone to agree with you. I asked you take it out, and told you to go to RS if you think an unpublished dissertation is a better source than a medical dictionary. I hope he blocks you for lying and disruption. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not about PetraSchelm. Multiple editors disagree with the interpretation of the definiton that AnotherSolipsist posted above. His note is an oversimplication of the issue and an unfair pinning of this on one editor. There is a complex content dispute on that article that has been going on for years, and nothing close to consensus at this point. Multiple editors are working on finding a solution and multiple editors have entered comments on all sides of the dispute.

There is no need to participate in an edit war. It makes no difference if a "wrong version" stays on a page for an hour or a day, the long run is what matters. The content dispute on the page can benefit from continued discussion and the involvement of more editors. A post on the RS noticeboard is welcome, and perhaps an RFC should be formatted.

But this is not about one editor, and it's unfair to single her out, especially when there has been tendentious disruption on all pedophilia-related topics from other editors and more than a few sock puppets (there is currently an RFCU in process about that).

Finding ways to resolve the multiple pedophilia-related content disputes currently in progress is most welcome. In order to do that, Wikipedia needs all the mainstream editors it can get to join the discussion, to avoid the tendentious propagation of fringe theories with undue weight that has been a significant issue on pedophile topics for a long time. Attracting more editors to the topic from all corners of Wikipedia will be the best solution; that, and finding ways to more quickly identify and block the continual stream of activist sockpuppets that edit those articles (the history of which can be seen clearly in the documented list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/Ham & Eggs). --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack, but from my perspective the complex discussions about the definition aren't what's at issue here at all, even though AS is trying to paint it that way--the only issue is that he used that source while lying about consensus (and is trying to blow it up into an issue/make trouble to deflect attention from Jovin Lambton). -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Whilst this administrator did tell PetraSchelm that she would be indef blocked if she continued her behaviour, I very much understand any decision to duck out of anything as damaging as properly dealing with a "good" editor. Are there any other admins who take a bold approach to inflammatory Anti-pedophile activism? J-Lambton ^T/_C 22:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh huh--we've been over your ludicruous attempts to paint anyone who points out your lousy behavior as an "anti-pedophile activist." The reason I am a good editor and you are not is that I actually contribute to articles, and all you do is disrupt. Weren't you going to provide some diffs, after Legitimus asked you, that you have ever added anything to any articles/evidence that you're here to build an encyclopedia? -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. That is the first time I have mentioned the term in relation to a generic group of editors, let alone any one person in particular. Your frequent disruption, hysterics, dramatics and well poisoning put you well among the elite of disruptive, non-productive editors.

Also incorrect. I have said right from the start that I will not provide diffs for someone else's contenton. I will not work for them, when the evidence for sourcing, civility, (attempts at) consensus building and respect towards consensus is right there in a <600 contributions log. J-Lambton ^T/_C 23:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And now I would like you to explain why you have already exceeded a pattern of behaviour that you were warned would lead to indefinite blocking of your account? This is after all a thread about yourself. J-Lambton ^T/_C 23:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've compiled the diffs on your extremely disruptive behavior already, as you know--and now they are posted to AN/I and Jimbo's talkpage, since no one is home at PAW or pedophile mentorship. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)