User talk:Swatjester/archive3

swat/dave whatever your name is. you do not care whether the wiki entry is vandalized, so long as it is vandalized with references to stormfront and other libels. please pack up your selective enforcement and mind your own business.

What the hell? This is my first edit to the article. I'm a freaking member of Protest Warrior no less. Crazy anons..... ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Err, regarding the AfD. I'm sorry I didn't mean to do criticize you personally - I just thought that from your comment you seemed to think that Pokemon was a joke, so that you would also keep the party on comparison to Pokemon. I just read too much between the lines. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I figured as much. I do feel very strongly that highly notable local events within a college or university scene, in the US, become notable throughout the US in a much larger region due to the inter-relations of the local fraternities who sponsor most of them. The chief example would be Florida State University and University of Florida's "Dance Marathon" philanthropy event not only gets extensive regional coverage, but is known throughout the nation's university system due to it's unique traits. The two parties listed, I've heard of through the grapevine at my university through my fraternity's social chairman's planning events. ("We should advertise in such and such a way, and try to become as big as starfuck, or sex power god are at brown"). Through that, I feel they are notable. Mr. Oreilly's deigning to mention them on his show only serves to reinforce my view. Anyway, I thank you for returning the comment. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

PlanetFurry article; nomination for deletion

I have noticed that you have recently nominated this article for deletion, but did not post why in the talk page. Please could you post why you think this article should be deleted in its talk page and possibly post on my talk page when you have done this? Thank you. Beno1000 16:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal, Stalker!

I see you have finally joined the ranks of being a stalker and a vandal. Congrats, your abusive editor t-shirt is in the mail. Why do you edit controversial subjects like Iraq War anyway? You should stick to nice, tame non-vandal-magnet articles like I do - Abortion, Intelligent design, etc. :P KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You're a rapist too? Come to Intelligent design and Abortion and you can be a God-hating atheist as well as a murderer, like me. Much more prestigious.

That's cool, but it's kind of prestigious I think being a racist, raping, baby eating war criminal too. Oh wait, maybe the baby eating thing will work on Abortion too....⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I note on your user page here I am listed as useful, thank you very much! - and you are also listed as useful, twice. Are you twice as useful to yourself as others are? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

But of course I am! Fixed, and some names updated/removed etc. You're still there though, although I'm thinking of changing your name there to VoluntaryManslaughterCanine. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Then of course I will insist on referring to you as "Violent Abuser of Innocent Purveyers of Humor." KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Search

The quickest way to find a user's subpages or pages where you are uncertain of the spelling is to do an All Pages search (alphabetical listing) like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allpages/User_talk:Swat NoSeptember ^talk 20:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to just look back through an earlier diff of my talk page, but my internet speed the past two days is running very slowly due to a large download I have going on. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Article for deletion Shiv Goraksha Babaji [1]

Hi I would like to urge you to reconsider your vote. I worked very hard on that page, and it's being listed by a user that has a personal vendetta against me because I've reported him for sockpuppeting and 3RR and vandalism..etc... anyway, I've included more evidence that it is notable - article gets 32,000 hits for search gorakhnath, which is a popular variant of his name [2]. Thanks, Hamsacharya dan 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverting without explaining

When you do a revert on an article ([3]) you should explain why in the edit summary. Why did you revert? Please come back and explain on the Talk page, otherwise we don't know what you think the problem is. RJII 16:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

your comments at my RfA

Howdy Swatjester, just wanted to respond to your comment. One of the questions JoshuaZ asked me (toward the bottom of my RfA), was about Esperanza. I mentioned that I hang out at the Esperanza IRC channel while I'm editing. There are usually several admins there, and they've helped me when AIV was unmonitored for a time and I needed to block a vandal quickly. They also helped me set up CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter, which has really helped me fight vandals. There are often a few people doing vandal fighting at the same time I am, so we communicate if anything big is happening. I hope this helps. I have also been invovled in creating new articles and adding to existing ones (see User:Fang Aili/Contributions). I won't be offended if you don't change your vote; just wanted to clarify things. Cheers! --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 16:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! Ya know, I think I knew about that channel, but I must have typed a wrong letter somewhere. Thanks again. (What I mean is, yes, I'll start hanging out there as well. Cheers.) --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 16:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Swatjester. KnowledgeOfPower and FireFox helped me get confirmed for the vandalism channel. I'm getting the hang of it. :) --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 20:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RfA Results and Thanks

Swatjester/archive3, thank you for your constructive opposition in my recent RfA. Although it did not succeed as no consensus was declared (final: 65/29/7), I know that there is always an opportunity to request adminship again. In the meantime, I will do my best to address your concerns in the hope that when the opportunity for adminship arises once again, you will reconsider your position. If at any time I make any mistakes or if you would like to comment on my contributions to Wikipedia, you are more than welcome to do so. Regardless of your religious, cultural, and personal beliefs, I pray that whatever and whoever motivates you in life continues to guide you on the most righteous path. --- joturner 05:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching Wikipediatrix for a while. If you want to start an RfC on her, I'd be willing to endorse it and provide evidence. --UNK 07:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would I start an RfC? I don't have any current issues: (emphasize current). If somone else started the RfC however, I'd comment and provide my history. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hope you're proud of yourself. --Tykell 02:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Swatjester, I think it has something to do with the fact you nominated his project for deletion and it got deleted.--Drat (Talk) 04:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a vandal

Hi, I just get your vandalism message on my talk page about the revert I made on Counte-strike. If I was wrong reverting, please accept my appologies, but I do think that the user who made the modifs I reverted was vandalizing (see Russia for example [4])-- CyrilB 18:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter, Issue I

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - March 2006
Project news An independent military history peer review has been created for the benefit of the project. A number of articles have already been reviewed, receiving significantly more feedback within the project than they did on the generic peer review page. The project's Collaboration of the Fortnight got off to a great start with Ferdinand Foch and is now focusing on the military history of Spain. Two new task forces—dealing with warfare during classical antiquity and the Middle Ages—have been created. An effort to build a catalogue of high-quality maps for use in military history articles is now underway. The newly-formed translation department is looking for volunteers to help with translating featured articles from other-language Wikipedias.	From the Coordinators Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Military history WikiProject's newsletter! We hope that this new format will help members—especially those who may be unable to keep up with some of the rapid developments that tend to occur—find new groups and programs within the project that they may wish to participate in. Please consider this inital issue to be a prototype; as always, any comments and suggestions are quite welcome, and will help us improve the newsletter in the coming months. Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator
Current proposals Proposed guidelines for categories of military people are currently being discussed. A number of issues have already been resolved, but the proposed scheme is still in draft form and further input would be very welcome.

delivered by Loopy ^e 05:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'm totally confused about how your strange message system is supposed to work, and have not idea if I'm commenting in the correct place. But that aside, I'm not sure what the purpose of your message to me was about. I'm in the middle of the whole Pro-Lick thing. I'm the one who blocked most of the sock puppets yesterday, and this is the second time I've reset the 48 hour 3RR block on Pro-Lick. The only sense I can make of your comment was that you may have been wondering why I was unblocking him. If that is the issue, then the answer is that I have to unblock first inorder to extend the block. It's a quirk of how the blocking software works. If there are any active blocks, the shortest block takes precedense. So the only way to increase the time of a block is to first remove all active blocks, then put the new, longer block in place. - TexasAndroid 15:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ieds

I was wondering what you know about IEDs and what is "actually" going on in Iraq. I am tired of seeing news reports that say how good it is going in Iraq, while at the same time you hear about bombing Iraq and more dead soldiers. Thanks.--Existential Thinker 00:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You have to look at it this way (this is what the media won't tell you). A single bomb maker, with ample supplies, can make dozens, maybe even hundreds of IED's a day. Normally, they work in groups; it's estimated that there are maybe a dozen or so bomb making cells responsible for 75% or more of the IED attacks. Anyway, a single cell can make a dozen very strong IED's (by that I mean an IED comprised of multiple 105 or 155mm artillery shells, and a remote detonator either by wire or radio, and shrapnel.) in a day. It's small, organized groups that are responsible for the vast majority of the US deaths. Al jazeera and even CNN would have you believe there is a vast insurgency. While there is a LOT of crime in Iraq, the vast majority of it is gang violence, even against the multinational forces. Gang violence is NOT insurgency, but it looks bad for the US if they call it insurgency so that's what the media reports. Think about it: What do insurgents stand to gain slaughtering other muslims? That's religious warfare against each other, which is usually conducted by....you guessed it. Religious gangs. It's no different than in africa with the hutus and the tutsis slaughtering each other (with the UN as the third party that they both hate). The fact is the majority of the things going on in Iraq are good: Schools are reopening, women have rights, citizens don't have to worry about imprisonment based on political agendas. Shit, we were a light infantry company at the time, so we were patrolling the streets on foot. We dealt with the average Iraqi every day. They're much better off now, and they understand that once the Iraqi police and Iraqi army get re-situated, security will be far better. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The term IED, which stands for Improvised Explosive Device, is nothing more than what we soldiers have always called a MINE. The modern term is the result of the hold that Political Correctness has on the US Government. What the Iraquis are doing is making use of the oldest form of Mine, which is improvised from Chemical Explosive, some form of Fuse, and some form of containment package. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 14:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

In some cases yes, in some cases no. I've seen all different kinds of IEDs, some of which more "improvised" than others. The vast majority of the ones targeting convoys are a couple 155mms taped together, stuffed in a barrel or other container, and filled with scrap metal. A smaller variant of that is a 60mm mortar covered with a blanket. They often tape more than one round together to up the blast power. Some are much more improvised: Coke cans filled with semtex etc.

Thing is, the knowledge to make these and where to get the materials is FAR beyond the average Iraqi, though the media would have you think that every Iraqi has a bomb factory in his/her basement.

There are probably a half dozen to a dozen MAJOR bomb-shops producing the majority of all IEDs in baghdad, and another dozen or more smaller bomb-shops producing the majority of the rest. Scale that down depending on which city you're in (or don't scale it at all for places like Ramadi). Thus, when we get intel and raid a major IED factory it's a HUGE blow against the insurgency. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That said, I was in Iraq from Feb 2003-2004. In that time, we were hit with 4 major IED attacks (not counting IED's that were used in the midst of a gun battle during the invasion). One attack hit our dismounted squad as we were heading out on a recon patrol. a 155mm round blew up, but we were well spread out and it only wounded 3 of us lightly (1 got some shrapnel in his neck superficially, another broke his leg, a third took shrapnel to the shoulder, also superficially). Another was multiple 155mm rounds that hit a convoy coming around a corner. It killed my best friend, and severely wounded another close friend, and a third friend (the medic) suffered some superficial damage and ruptured eardrums from the blast. A third was hidden in a tree in two seperate devices, it cut up one of our soldiers faces, but not too badly. The fourth was a package of mortar shells, I don't know how-employed. It killed our brigade command-sergeant major. On christmas eve. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

How can you be sure that the IEDs or homemade "mines" are not created and planted by insurgents? You bring up the idea of religious gangs that are claimed to be responsible for current IED attacks, but how is that any different than the insurgents? What are you trying to prove by escaping the fact that these are people that are not trying to hurt their own civilians, but us? They may be hurting civilians, but I would like to know what evidence you have to back up your hypothesis. --Existential Thinker 19:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Watch out, now you're confusing two seperate claims. The Insurgents are very definately planting these IEDs, I am not disputing that. My hypothesis is that there are only a small number of insurgents responsible for a very large number of IED attacks.

My SECOND claim is that overall violence (Not just IEDs, in fact, mostly I'm referring to gun violence and kidnappings, rocket attacks etc) comes from religious gangs.

The difference shows too. If there is a very small number of insurgents contributing a large number of IED attacks, then it follows that they are well trained in what they are doing (thus differentiating themselves from the gangs). If you'll notice, the large percentage of attacks against civilians are poorly executed, lending credence to gang violence, whereas the largest percentage of well-executed attacks are instead directed at US forces (lending credence to a small but trained insurgency): the numbers then are equally matched: A large but amateur and part-time gang can contribute about the same number of attacks overall as a small but dedicated full tim insurgency.

Does that clear things up for you? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda

Dijxtra, Zocky, Dcabrillo e altri sono slavi anti Italiani e fanno solo merdosa propaganda comunista in voce Tito. Sono collaboratore registrato in versione italiana ma qui non riesco a registrarmi. Tito fu un criminale dittatore; le foibe massacres furono pulizia etnica ossia ethnic despoil contro gl'Italiani voluta dal comunista criminale di guerra Tito. I primi partigiani organizzati furono i Cetnici comandati dal generale Mihailovic non i comunisti. Tito ha un mausoleo in Belgrado: questo mausoleo è un insulto agl'Italiani nelle foibe e agli slavi assassinati da OZNA e UDBA. Se vuoi comunicare con me puoi lasciare un messaggio in talk:Josip Broz Tito a Pio. Ciao, collaboratore Pio 18:50, 31 March 2006

massages

I'm sorry when I was discussing this with a coworker he informed me that this was just a prank that the detectives like to pull.

Hi Swatjester - I discovered the sentence above when I came here to award you the highly coveted Carptrash Thumbs Award. I thought I'd let it stay. Anyway, the Thumbs Up Award is for your saving of the Tina Modotti article, one near and dear to my heart. I read over much of your "About Me" page and am ready to vote for you for any thing - as soon as you remove the word "hate" from your page, and perhaps even beffore then. Carptrash 16:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

When I click on "leave a message for" I get back into this box. Something needs work to make that link work..

That's intended. Puts new comments into my inbox, that I can sort and move later. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there are too many people who hate those who believe in religion

I also hate people who

What I hate most is

This is the hate I'm talking about. Carptrash 16:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The first instance is intended. The second two you're more than welcome to change to dislike strongly. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I have never edited on anyone else's User Page, and am not likely to start now. After all, these are your feelings that are being posted, not mine. Carptrash 22:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC) PS I am curious about the Icelandic flag in your signature? Is there a story?

So, have you spent any time delving into the mysteries of the Icelandic language? I have several Icelandic content articles around here, I guess Einar Jonsson was the first. Carptrash 05:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Croatian historian

This user has removed bad-faith and inappropriate warnings placed on his page by people who are in conflict with him at various articles. Did you have other warnings in mind? If not, then your own warning looks like victimisation of someone who has been under attack. His own actions haven't been perfect, but they've been performed under pressure. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The warnings were not bad faith. He's made personal attacks against me, rory, nlu. He's blanked warnings despite being told not to by the admins. He has no excuse for his actions. I've quoted policy to him. I've shown him the links. He continues to attack all of us. Now he's gaming the system by asking for help from other users. Scroll down on my talk page, I've been having complaints about him before any of this even started. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalizing Users

AHrvojic, Croatian_historian and EurowikiJ are vandalizing several croatian-history articles by denying the thruth and spreading anti-Serb propaganda in their edits, Please look at their edits! User talk:Nexm0d

What do you want me to do about it? It's a content dispute, not simple vandalism. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 13:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute? please, check the articles, you'll see...

Well, Croatian Historian just was punished for personal attacks and deleting warnings. Your best bet is to go to WP:AN/I and bring it up there. They can do something about the rest. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The anon I blocked

Hi, Swatjester. Not sure where you want my message to go, but if it's in the wrong place, you can move it. I blocked 217.33.207.195. for one hour, because, as it says on his talk page, several legitimate users, including one admin use that address. Sorry, but I don't think I can give a lengthy block in such a case. AnnH ♫ 10:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of 4-6 hours. But I sort of see your point. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the instructions on how to go about the copyright violations. I apologise for before, I wasnt aware of the procedure to follow.

Sbryce858 07:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Manly site has published an article that has copyright without the consent of the owner. The author of the article has emailed me to remove it and to notify whoever did it that they have produced it without his consent. For a link to the article click: http://www.rl1908.com/Clubs/Manly-Sea-Eagles-a.htm Message me back if you get this message

Sbryce858 07:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

--Maximix 07:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Ciao. Posso modificare il vostro en:template:quoted per avere "an alignment on the left"? See:

• it:template:quote (example it:Taranto)
• de:template:quote (example de:Tarent)

It should be changed in this way: float:right; --> float:left; (Your italian is not so bad) --Maximix 07:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I went to copy and paste the latest monobook and put my name in the appropriate places, but on the preview it made everything wacky; greyed out, parced... I'm not using Wayward's .css, but I have no problems right now with the monobook. Any idea what the problem might be? I know nothing about coding. TKE 17:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Is your last version the last version I had? My monobook is naturally a grey color compared to the normal wikipedia skin... Try completely copying my monobook.js and .css over.

Alright, I think I've figured it out. Without the skin, certain tabs are not present all the time: they appear when applicable and sometimes not even then. I don't care for the gray skin, so I'll keep rocking as is and insert your new tabs. Makes it less uniform, but it works for me. Thanks! TKE 01:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I have tryed to get your POV on the Iraq War for about a week now cause my posts have been deleted several times. Thanks.--Existential Thinker 03:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What part about it would you like? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Kenneth Jacob here. Wrote the article on John Jacob of Jacobabad. His name is mentioned in the article on Jacobabad. I have added the DNB to sources. My website gives images relevant of him and relevant to him. Anyone with an inkling of 19th century Indian history would know him in any case.

Hi, why this revert?: Taranto (Revert to revision 45838895 using popups) --Maximix 11:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a large blanking in that edit that I reverted. If there is a blanking, and it is being archived or moved to a new article, it needs to be mentioned in the edit summary, or else the vandalism watchers will think its just being blanked. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 11:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, the edit summary should be "Moved to new article History of Taranto" ? --Maximix 11:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Move it again, I won't revert it. It'd be a good idea next time to state explicitly what your doing though, some of us anti-vandals have itchy revert-button fingers. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 11:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Grazie (Thanks) ;-)

io parlo italiano un poco. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 11:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

After another look at the order of posts the other night, and your edit summaries, I now see that I was 100% in the wrong to behave the way I did. In truth, I realized this about halfway into our dispute. But rather than do the right thing, I chose to fight like a cornered rat, a fact of which I am not at all proud.

I guess my increasingly ridiculous responses were due to an irrational overreaction at having my edit reverted so quickly. But I realize that happens at Wikipedia sometimes, and is rarely done with malice. Rather than accept that a blog entry was an unacceptable Wikipedia source, I chose to filibuster. Surely not my finest hour.

As the dispute progressed, I relied on personal attacks ("Cpl. Hairtrigger," etc.) to prop up my case, and only succeeded in embarrassing myself further. Your refusal to rise to the bait was impressive, and set an example I hope I can emulate. I've been in a few Wikipedia disputes (sometimes even on the right side), and I've often displayed far too feral a tone.

Thanks for behaving like a gentleman in the face of some very immature behavior. I hope you'll accept my apologies. Eleemosynary 13:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted and greatly appreciated. It takes big wiki-balls to offer a sincere apology, and I appreciate it. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Rollback

I don't want to nag, but in cases like this it's probably best not to use the rollback tool, so you can provide an explanation to the user of why their edits didn't improve the page. Cheers. Leithp 14:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's quicker though. If they question it, I explain on their talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 14:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it is convenient. I won't argue with that. It does seem a bit unwelcoming though and we need as many article editors as we can get. Anyway, it's a trivial point. Leithp 14:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

TKE

Just reading on the stress over IRC and interaction with other wikipedians. I don't do it, I don't plan on it. It's an almost professional thing if you take it seriously, and office politics and gossip go round. If you get to know personalities, it'll bite you. TKE 07:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I went to copy and paste the latest monobook and put my name in the appropriate places, but on the preview it made everything wacky; greyed out, parced... I'm not using Wayward's .css, but I have no problems right now with the monobook. Any idea what the problem might be? I know nothing about coding. TKE 17:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Is your last version the last version I had? My monobook is naturally a grey color compared to the normal wikipedia skin... Try completely copying my monobook.js and .css over.

Alright, I think I've figured it out. Without the skin, certain tabs are not present all the time: they appear when applicable and sometimes not even then. I don't care for the gray skin, so I'll keep rocking as is and insert your new tabs. Makes it less uniform, but it works for me. Thanks! TKE 01:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Latest AIV addition

69.120.33.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has not yet recieved any warnings for his/her actions; therefore I cannot go straight into blocking otherwise I would. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 07:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

They're warned now. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I copied your monobook, and I've been diggin' it. Good stuff. :) TKE 07:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Oooh, nice mod. TKE 07:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal

212.150.7.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked for 48 hours per a review of past edits and recent vadalism Thank you. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 07:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal 2 has been blocked for 24 hours. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 07:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If he keeps this up after the block, I will make sure next time he gets blocked for at least several days/week(s). ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C)

Hey, you sent me the message about your wish to tell me your POV on the Iraq War. I'm all ears. Oh, Did you really serve in the war?--Existential Thinker 22:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I served with the 3/124th Infantry attached to various units, 1st Armored Division, 3rd Infantry division, Task Force Tarawa, 1st MEF, etc. The Iraq war is a broad topic, which particular view did you want?⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

EatWantons

Fixed. Reblocked him indefinetly, left the template on the talkpage abakharev 11:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

My RfA recently closed and it was a success, passing at 84-02-00. I would like to thank you for taking the time to weigh in and on your subsequent support. And I know it's quite cliche, but if you ever need any assistance by an admin, grab a Pepsi and don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks again and see you around IRC. Pepsidrinka 18:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you so much for supporting me in my recent RfA, which passed with a final tally of 56/1/0. I thank you for your confidence in my abilities. If you ever need anything or find that I have made an error, please let me know on my talk page. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Snakes on a Plane

I've referenced the possible hoax info. Please do not blank it. That could be considered vandalism. Thanks. Eleemosynary 08:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't care how many edits you've made, nor am I swayed by your hairtrigger defensiveness. I can post over 5,000 links in which people seriously wonder if the movie is a hoax. Your unilateral blanking of the section is very close to vandalism. Apparently, you need reminding of it. Eleemosynary 08:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but no need to come onto my talk page with such a tone. You need to review WP:CIVIL and WP:DICK. The blanking is not unilateral, in fact, you're the only editor so far supporting an unacceptably linked source. Get your facts straight please. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Your talk page is not your own. I'll come "here" in any tone I choose. Your blanking without explaining why on the talk page was a moronic move, and you've been called on it. Deal with it. I'll get my source, restore what you blanked, and you'll still be a... hey, you might want to check WP:DICK too.

I explained perfectly why in the edit sum, as did the editor before me who reverted you the first time. I warned you once not to come onto my talk page in an uncivil tone again. Do NOT do it again. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I give as good as I get. First, you were brusque. Now, you're uncivil. You'll be responded to in kind. Deal with it. Make as many idle threats as you want; I could care less. P.S. Short of personal attacks, you're not in a position to request I modify my tone. P.P.S. Your Talk Page is not your own. If you don't wish for me to visit your Talk Page, stop visiting mine. Eleemosynary 08:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please try and keep a cool head, despite comments people may make against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments will only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try and be civil. Thanks! (CJ)

Sorry, but there's no excuse to remove an AfD tag, unless it's to put up a speedy deletion tag instead. Bring it up on the AfD page.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:impersonator

Until this week I had barely ever used my blocking capabilities, and only ever for short periods. This week I have found myself indefinitely blocking each new sockpuppet of the same puppeteer, only to find another sock created shortly afterwards. The last (so far) of the series was named in my honour. Snottygobble 11:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

please, I am a regular wikipedean, do not block me why have I been warned and of what ???

(207.69.137.36 05:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

You were warned for vandalizing User:Grandmaster's page with "I'm gay and I love penis" and the like.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Hi there, thanks for your attention to the "discussion" at the Joseph Smith, Jr. talk page. It would be great if you could elaborate on your comments, or if you have some suggestions for how to proceed with preventing future disturbances that would be great, I am finding it very difficult to endlessly keep my temper (as you likely noticed) in the face of the intentional disruption...any suggestions, please? bcatt 05:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have been thinking about an RfC, but I'm not clear on the process for starting one. I have tried wikiquette alerts and nothing seemed to come of it. Is it inappropriate of me to alert more than one admin with requests to come look at the page? There is an admin that semi-regularly takes part in the discussion there, but he ignores all the behaviour of those that I am having issues with (or makes excuses for them) and even claimed that by pointing out this selective attention and double standard, I was making a personal attack against him! In regard to an RfC, I haven't been able to find anything like "instructions" for how to start one...especially for the three endorsers needed - how do I acheive this without violating policy? (not sure exactly which one it would be, but it seems that asking a bunch of people to come sign it is something like vote stacking, which is not allowed). I would like to just get this article dealt with (instead of wasting time on unproductive talk) so I can get back to my regular articles. Thanks for your help. bcatt 06:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been months since I submitted my one and only RfC, my memory is spotty, but IIRC the process is listed on WP:RFC. As for the appropriateness of alerting multiple admins: I don't know. I'd personally say yes, so long as it's a small number, or ones you've dealt with personally in the past, but I don't know the policy on that one.

As for getting your endorsements for RfC, contact anyone ACTUALLY involved. That's not votestacking, that's good etiquette in making sure they're aware of the process going on (you'd do the same in an ArbCom).

I'd advise you to do two things: go in the IRC (irc.freenode.net) and join the #wikipedia-bootcamp and #wikipedia channels, and ask there. Also, add the {{helpme}} template to your talk page and someone will come out there to help you.

Secondarily, your situation doesn't look like it will get solved without mediation. I'd go to WP:3O and also request mediation from the cabal, or an administrator, that seems like the only way.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the help. That clears up the things I was unsure about. About the server-load...is it the loading of the page when someone visits it that is the issue? If I broke it down into a couple pages, would that make a difference, or should I look at just refactoring the whole thing? Thanks again. bcatt 18:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, when someone loads your page, it puts a stress on the server's bandwidth from so many images, and it's rather distracting. I'm not saying you HAVE to do it, nah screw any form of censorship, but it may be something you want to consider doing. One concept I've seen lately is to make a "userbox" page linked from your main page: So you'd have User:Bcatt, and then a link to User:Bcatt/aboutme or something, I'm not sure exactly what the syntax for it is but it's done the same way you do an archive page. That way, people interested in seeing your userboxes and other pictures stuff can do so, but they don't get distracted along the way if they don't want to. Also, it makes those of us using popups much happier ;) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You've got me brainstorming now :)...thanks for the suggestions. bcatt 19:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sign warnings, please

I noticed you added {{bv}} without signing it; this is not optimal. Please sign warnings in the future. Thanks! JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Must have slipped my mind. Can you direct me to who it was, so I can go back and fix it? I've got a bad habit of forgetting. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Some prat from tennessee

It's the last in a number of bad edits this user did this evening, including the edit summary "revert gay" on his user talk page. We'll see what he comes up with when the block expires. -- Francs2000 04:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. It's also part of a string of bad-faith edits involving the Eden page, and some other related pages. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA.

Sadly, my RfA failed (on my birthday out of all days!), mainly due to it's closeness to the previous one. I hope that in any future RfAs I'll have your support!

Nonetheless, if I can do anything for you don't hesitate to ask me.

Have a nice St Patrick's Day!

Computerjoe's talk 21:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

My RFA Withdrawal :(

Hello Swatjester, it is my apologies to bring you that I've withdrawn my RFA. Due to the lack of experience, I would go under admin coaching first before trying again later. I would thank you for your vote in this RFA whether you voted support, oppose or neutral for me. I appreciate your comments (if you do have) you made and I hope to see you here in future. --Terence Ong 14:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Note

Hello, I noticed you edited a Hip Hop related article. If you wish you can join the new Hip Hop Wikiproject. Thanks for your time. Tutmosis 22:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:RfA vandalism

Ottoman Sultan is not my other username. He's just new. I'm guessing he's just trying to copy my signature and me because I welcomed him to Wikipedia. Oh and I'm not sure at how many edits you need to become admin but to I'm guessing to guarenteedly win to become Admin, you should have at least 2,500 edits.

CrnaGora | Talk | Contribs 04:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not how it looks. You should explain yourself at WP:AN/I. As for the amount of edits to become an admin there is no number required. Some have been promoted with as low as 900. Most of the time you'll need at least 1000 article space edits, at least 1000 total edits and at least 3-4 months on wikipedia, but this is no hard and fast rule: there are always exceptions. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I replied to you on the Pegasus RfA, but I thought I'd write here to explain once more that I don't disagree with you at all as to your conclusion that Ottoman and Crna are the same user (although the explanation above is somewhat persuasive). My disagreement with you was as to the discussion you have above with respect to edit counts and one's becoming an admin. While I don't support a hard-and-fast rule (and certainly don't think one must have 2500-3000 edits to become an admin), some users do hold themselves to such a rule in voting, as is their right. I disagreed with you only inasmuch as you seemed to be telling the user either that he/she was attempting to mislead others into believing there to be a hard-and-fast rule under which, for example, Pegasus would be ineligible for adminship or that he/she was untowardly using a hard edit count rule. Notwithstanding that, I thank you for trying to stop a prospective sockpuppet, and I concur, btw, with your comments on the admin noticeboard to the effect that, irrespective of the minimal effect the sockpuppetry had on the voting, something needed to be done about it (of course, now Crna adduces a history between Ottoman and he/she toward the proposition that the two are not the same, so perhaps there was no problem). Cordially, Joe 19:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I understand fully what you said. I know some users have self-inflicted rules on their admin edit counts, I was referring that the project itself has no hard and fast rule, and there's no consensus yet. As for Crna's alleged sockpuppetry, I'm not swayed by the argument when I look at the near identicality of their comments. I don't care enough to take it to check-user, as he hasn't actually hurt anything (pegasus was going to fail anyway), but if you or someone else did, then it'd be nice to hear of the result. Thanks for the comments. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Your recent rollback

This is not vandalism. I removed a thread I posted on his talk page, the matter is closed. Please don't roll it back. Thank you. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 06:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You deleted another users comments on his own talk page. If he wants to delete them, he can delete them himself. Otherwise, do not delete other user's talk page comments, especially when you're involved in a dispute with them. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but I deleted comments on his talk page that I wrote myself. Kindly read the comments (just humour me and do it) before you senselessly revert them. See all three signatures at the end of the comments? They were signed by me -- nathanrdotcom -- not anyone forging my signature; they were genuinely written by me. I know how Wikipedia works, I've been here long enough to know. If the issue posted is a dead one, I can and will delete it. Please do not edit-war; you can involve an admin to mediate this if you like but I will keep reverting the page. It involved him spamming me and I dealt with the issue. Ergo, the comments do not belong there. I think I've explained it sufficiently. I won't be watching this talk page (watching too many already); if you'd like to involve an admin, he/she may post about the matter on my talk page. Otherwise, I consider the matter closed. — File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 05:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't interpret WP:3RR as meaning you're entitled to three reverts, though. That's not the point at all. Admins can and will block you on three reverts if it's obvious you're just getting into a senseless edit war but trying to toe the line by not going into fourth territory. --Cyde Weys 07:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh I fully understand that Cyde. I have no intention of putting it back again even after my 24 hours are up. I've, as stated, brought an RfC on the issue, and asked for second opinions of my position to see whether I'm just on crack or if I'm correct. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you'll notice, with each reversion that I made, I provided a further justification on the talk page. As there's nothing more for me to say regarding it, there's no call for a further reversion. I'm well aware of both the letter and the intent of the 3RR rule. I don't intend to game the system at all. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

S. O. A. P.

Thanks for the offer to help me, but I achieved what I wanted to. The first still from the movie (just below the infobox) was causing a lot of gap between the Plot heading and the text for the section (including the spoiler warning). The heading was just below the contents box and the text started below the infobox. I was getting text to fill up the gap, which retaining the positioning of the images.

I finally did it. Thanks for the offer, anyways. Have a nice day. --Soumyasch 08:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Hey Swatjester,

Would you be able to please protect the Iranian peoples page? There's a full-scale revert war going on right now, I already added a request at WP:RPP. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 06:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyways. --Khoikhoi 06:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus

I will not allow such words against me to remain. The fued that went on was biased and no one stepped in when that anon IP was making malicious edits towards me. User:Rarelibra

You do not WP:OWN the article. The anon was making an apology towards you. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

READ HIS WORDS - he was not apologizing.

"And i just wish to apologise to all the users, to have put through such a waste of space and time. I realised that there is so much misery and hatred in this world after an interesting event that happened to me. i have decided to back down and let peace prevail." That's an apology. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That was also not the old version - the old one apologized to all "except Rarelibra" and said statements against me. 11B4H Rarelibra 06:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

11B20 ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 07:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I lose my temper with religious fanatics like the one I sent that "message" to... Arges 14:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit war at religious conversion

Anonymous Editor and Irishpunktom, both zealous activist Sunni Muslims, are involved in edit warring at religious conversion. I suggest you compare both versions and decide for yourself first which are better sourced and more POV. Religious bigotry should not get a place at Wikipedia. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 12:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Swatjester, what's the vandalism blacklist, and why would these users be on it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

On IRC, tawkerbot and pgkbot maintain a blacklist of users who have been blocked, or manually added, as well as a greylist of users who have registered within the past 30 minutes, and a whitelist of trusted countervandalism users.

Moshe and ManiF were both auto-added to the blacklist when they received their 3RR blocks. Note, their blacklist status isn't permanent, as mentioned in my initial message, apparently they expire on the 30th and 29th. You should check out the IRC #vandalism-wp-en channel, it's very useful: It's like CDVF but better in that there are colors for IP edits, blacklisted user edits, admin edits, large blankings, large additions, tiny creates, etc. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. What is a vandalism blacklist and why am I on it? I've never vandalized any pages. The only time I was blocked was for breaking 3RR in an attempt to counter vandalism. [5] --ManiF 06:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You were automatically added to it as part of your 3RR block. It doesn't mean you're a vandal, it just means you're "watched", and edits you make are listed in case anyone wants to review it. It's entirely unofficial and does not affect your editing in anyway. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Swatjester. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel I should say that in my defense the user that reported me for the 3RR violation later apoligized and the admin who blocked me implied he wouldn't of done so if he had seen the history.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no defense needed. Just cause you're on the black list doesn't mean you're a vandal, it just means your edits are flagged until you get off. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 10:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Croatian historian

I've looked at your diffs; not one of them consitutes anything blockable; perhaps one of them is mildly uncivil. I'm unblocking him and bringing the matter up at WP:AN/I. Frankly, I find your behaviour, and that of one or two other admins involved, to be emotional and unacceptable. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You find another user telling me to shutup nothing to bother with? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As for AN/I, the matter is already up there. ⇒ SWATJester <small>^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

1. I suggest you do something about your talk page; I clicked on the edit link of the section in which you'd replied, and found this. Why do you insist on organising your Talk page so that it goes against normal WWikipedia usage, and breaks the normal "+" method of adding a new section?
2. One incident of telling you to shut up (especially after the unfair pressure under which you're putting him) does not justify a block; the other diffs you left at WP:AN/I don't count as personal attacks.
3. In any case, you should have taken it to other admins at WP:AN/I. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

1: See the commented section above.

2: I DIDN'T BLOCK HIM BECAUSE I'M NOT AN ADMIN! 2.5: pressure does not justify violating policy. 3: It's already up at AN/I.

⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

ADmin

You seem like a strong vandal fighter and I'm getting tired of seeing your posts on the vandalism page, so how would you feel about being nominated as an admin? Let me know.Gator (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like it Gator, however I may not pass due to only having registered on Jan. 4 (so about 3 full months). I know 3 months is about the borderline, and 4 or more is better. However, if you're willing to nominate, I will accept: If it doesn't work, we can always try again later. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend that you wait. The timing is marginal and given that you state your willingness to be blocked for 3RR and that edit warring is not a bad thing (User:Swatjester/Who am I), you should wait and adopt a moderate position or you will be soundly defeated. The problem is, once these issues are brought up in an RfA, they will be brought up again each and every time you do another RfA (people read previous RfAs). It could hurt you for a long time to come. If you think I am wrong, please consult with others about this, sound them out if they think this could be a problem for you. Cheers, NoSeptember ^talk 11:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I totally forgot I made that statement. It was a long time ago, when I was less experienced and angry over a specific revert war. I've changed my views since then, and have noted it on that page. I'm inclined to agree with Gator, in that if I lose, I'm more than likely to do well later on with the second nomination. The fact that it's not a self-nom would probably help quite a bit as well. Also, I'm pretty sure that I've got good answers to Massiveego's, NSLE's, and other's questions: I've been reviewing them on the current RFA and been figuring it out for myself.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 13:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think you know that one issue can be latched onto by a bunch of oppose voters. If it is something like being too new or edit summaries, a second RfA will not be affected. If it is something like civility or edit warring it may linger in later RfAs. Just make sure you consider clearing up any issues like the non-anon stance etc. that can worry people about how you would treat newbie editors. And you must be overly civil in responding to oppose voters during the RfA (more on RfA conduct). It is hard to predict how people will react to an RfA, go ahead with it if you think you have your bases covered, especially in areas where your opinions/attitudes differ from the typical editor. NoSeptember ^talk 14:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've never nominated anyone before so let me look into it. You may lose your first time, but so did I and then I won it 108/0/1 the second time around so things turn out just fine. I'll get back to you.Gator (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect you would also have a problem with your anti-anon stance. Administrators need to be accessible to all users. If you are issuing warnings and (as an admin) blocks to anons, then the anons need to be able to come here to respond. Yeah, 99% of the "response" is user and talk page vandalism, but this is a matter of principle and process. Admins really cannot be unwilling to accept communication from a whole segment of the population. - TexasAndroid 13:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to respond to an anon who's not vandalizing. However, the vast majority of them are. Just because I think anons should be required to register doesn't mean I'm unwilling to deal with them. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 13:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Haliburton Shill/Pro-Lick/etc

I've blocked all four identified accounts indefinitely, and left messages on all four pages asking him to select one to keep. My guess would be he'll select Pro-Lick, as it appears to be the most established of the accounts, but it's his choice really. Just keeping you up to date on what's going on with him. - TexasAndroid 17:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malachi Barrie

Please see my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malachi Barrie. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda

Dijxtra, Zocky, Dcabrillo e altri sono slavi anti Italiani e fanno solo merdosa propaganda comunista in voce Tito. Sono collaboratore registrato in versione italiana ma qui non riesco a registrarmi. Tito fu un criminale dittatore; le foibe massacres furono pulizia etnica ossia ethnic despoil contro gl'Italiani voluta dal comunista criminale di guerra Tito. I primi partigiani organizzati furono i Cetnici comandati dal generale Mihailovic non i comunisti. Tito ha un mausoleo in Belgrado: questo mausoleo è un insulto agl'Italiani nelle foibe e agli slavi assassinati da OZNA e UDBA. Se vuoi comunicare con me puoi lasciare un messaggio in talk:Josip Broz Tito a Pio. Ciao, collaboratore Pio