Swatjester, please look CPTGbr called me troll diff on the deletion discussion page. Moreover he also was uncivil for me at the talk page for FSB, here is the diff. Vlad fedorov 17:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for you comments on Mohammad Badshah Qadri in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I doubt that a whole book has been written about him, at least not in English. However, I am almost certain that I will find sufficient mention of him in either Haeri, Muneera (2000) The Chishtis: a living light Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, ISBN 0195793277, or Ernst, Carl W. and Lawrence, Bruce B. (2002) Sufi Martyrs of Love: The Chishti Order in South Asia and Beyond Palgrave Macmillan, New York, ISBN 1403960267, both of which I have requested on inter-library loan. The search terms that Library of Congress uses here are: Chishtiyah and Chishtiyah members -- Biography. I am more sanguine about the Ernst book because it has a chapter entitled: Modern Day Chishtis. --Bejnar 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikistock. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Rovo79 04:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Please would you consider blocking (even temporarily) User:Alfred Vella who keeps reverting and vandalising pages, eg Harpenden where he reverted the new info box and re-instated vandalism. and Milton Keynes College where he insists on adding info about the Univesity of Luton (with which he has a personal problem). Many thanks for having a lookGazMan7 08:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you please unblock 202.76.162.34? I don't want to create an account for that address. And I need it unblocked now! 202.76.162.34 should be unblocked now! 03:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Did you even bother to read the post I put up on the talk page, or the page itself? If you had, you would have realized that Five Clicks To Jesus is a harmless game. To quote the page "The purpose of the Five Clicks To Jesus game is simple. It's a game simply to pass the time. It's not intended to offend anyone or stir up any animosity." Also, I think I posted a rather eloquent argument to the speedy deletion on the talk page.
In addition, I don't appreciate you calling it inappropriate and threatening to block me. How this simple game could be seen as inappropriate is beyond me. It's intended to simply waste time. I demand that your deletion of it be reviewed by another administrator.
PhoenixFire296 05:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
In all fairness, I only made the page just now. I wasn't even aware it had been created in the past. I got the idea from someone on Facebook and thought that a Wikipedia article for a Wikipedia game would be appropriate. In fact, I just registered my username in order to create the page. So saying that I'm responsible for creating and recreating it is just unfair. Blame the original creator, whoever that may be, for the first creation, but mine was wholly independent.
PhoenixFire296 05:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The Chink article has been greatly expanded now. Please take a look and see if you are interested in reconsidering your vote for merge. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you blocked this user for 24 hours, however since then he continues the personal attacks, uncivil/disruptive behavior on this talk page. See [1] and [2]. A long block may be required? Your call. 03:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. If you have time, could you please have a look at this [3], thanks! Shervink 13:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)shervink
Hey. Thanks for supporting my RFA. It ended successfully. SGGH 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The unfortunate thing is that it was all erased.
After being told by one and all to put in the
aforementioned things the places where I have
done so were methodically followed and where I had gone back and added refernces, cources
and quotations they were all "vanished". Now I
suppose I will go back and do it all again? I don't think so. In my efforts to add information to "balance" the views on many pages as REQUESTED by your
own editors I have been called "incomprehensible" and having written "nonsense". So when I went back
and added the sources I was using and the quotes
to show prehaps what I have written is not "nonsense";
my backing information was all erased. Hmm...........
Should I even continue? I have a library of over three
hundred titles I used to write my book: shall I now
add it all again to back up my interpolations? And take
the chance of being blocked? When my additions are vandalized so that I appear to be an idiot?
Unicorn144 05:11, 25 March 2007
(UTC) This is probably a rhetorical question;
can this be fixed?Unicorn144 05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Swat Jester. Thank you for your comment. It has been ignored and deleted. Have a nice day. --Emperor 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw your notes regarding my article "Professor N S Ramaswamy". It was NOT an experiment to create it in sand box. I am new to wikipedia, and you didn't have to "bite". You could have provided more inputs to improve my article. You will find several articles linked in Padma Bhushan. All these people are padma bhushan award winners, and I don't see any reason why one article which doesn't site sufficient sources is not deleted and the other is deleted.
I just rewrote the article, hopefully without conflict of interest. What do you think?--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 18:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Why u nominate it for deletion look at Young Hot Rod myspace and ull see its a record label.Tru Soulja 18:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Can I ask for your opinion please?
I had one persistent wikistalker, and a couple of sockpuppets, to whom, in retrospect, I think I extended far too much benefit of the doubt, in assuming good faith. In retrospect I think I should have initiated formal steps against my abusers.
Recently User:HanzoHattori has, in my opinion at least, violated wp:civ, wp:npa and wp:not#wikipedia is not a battlefield.
I saw that you blocked them, just over a month ago, for making personal attacks. So, you know something of their interaction style.
Could you take a look at User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Abusive Correspondents/HanzoHattori and offer an opinion as to whether I should consider taking formal steps now? And, if so, what would you recommend?
Thanks! -- Geo Swan 20:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
hello Swatjester, you recently blocked Dreamz rosez for warring and puppetry on Rafida. it seems, however, that this user created a whole horde of puppets in order to circumvent the semi-protect status assigned to the article several months ago. he is now employing Inn gan goo (talk · contribs) and Heats of heaven (talk · contribs), although i suspect he has a lot more accounts prepared for use. ITAQALLAH 01:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Swatjester! It seems that user Biophys has restored recently his Internet Troll Squads article containing his original research again, this time under Internet brigades title.Vlad fedorov 04:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
He's being thick strictly for the sake of it now. HalfShadow 22:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
RE: Your question, "yes". :-) A jester like yourself, should certainly understand. :-p Tomertalk 02:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
You blocked User:Fnagaton for 24 hours less than 24 hours ago. I don't know what happened, but the user is editing at least his user talk page (or is it that editing own user talk page is possible even when blocked?), for example removing the notification that he is blocked. --SLi 13:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting the cause against the banned user. I'm not sure if you want to do anything about this banned user. But here is the evidence anyways. If you look here, you'll see that he refers to himself as Panairjdde who is a comfirmed sockpuppet. Kingjeff 15:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
you actually got to sit down and write an article on something that interested you? I am wondering if we should humorously ask for an Admin day", when only sysops can edit, so some of us can actualy do, you know, the shit that attracted us here in the first place. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks; this is the sort of thing I've been talking about at WP:AN/I (is that where you came across it? If so, I'm sorry to have dragged you into such a mess, but I'm very glad of your help.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Your comments on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kzrulzuall border on the level of incivility at which I care. I would love to see you remove my vote and try to cite WP:POINT. The ensuing block would be most satisfying. Of course, not as satisfying as seeing you refer to my "frivolous," "vendetta"-motivated, "support" vote. KazakhPol 14:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry: caution deserved. I was about to ask if you could take a look in admin capacity at the situation - false accusations of stalking, for tracking disruptive edits from an editor who'd posted his autobiography then taken offence at WP:COI warnings and an AFD. But I see the guy has been indefinitely blocked. Tearlach 11:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
this is just to let you know that I have reported your recent behaviour on the EVP talk page to the Foundation. Whether or not Wiki is liable for libellous statements is, to my mind, neither here nor there. Such unfounded defamatory accusations against living persons seems to me to be wrong in and of itself. That you chose to support it is, I suppose, your right, but it is something that I think should be taken far more seriously than you appear to have done.Davkal 23:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for saying that my argument for the AfD for Counter-strike culture was on the mark. Being a halfway new contributer, it really made my day for you to agree with my statement. Thanks again! Mastrchf91 19:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I added a category for you. Now leave TSR alone and fill up the category I made for Boston Legal Postcard Cathy 17:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Just in case you don't go back to read my user page:
I'm sorry, but I disagree. The article is contradicting. I understand that the V. Tech and the Bath disaster are different only because of the method used. But I do agree that shooting should be emphasized, but that's not how the article reads. News sources are unreliable. I just ask to be consistent and clear and make sure that the reader can understand the context of the article. It seems to go on about school shootings, then it talks about massacres that happened in a prison and/or in a restaurant, etc. One killer, then two killers, etc. Also, stating "worse in the history" "worse ever in the world" and then have the number not match up is embarrassing and INACCURATE. Wikipedia is not the News service. Like I said, the news gets it wrong a lot of the time. Is it a massacre by shooting? Is it a killing by one killer? Is it a school shooting? Or is it just a massacre? Sounds nitpicky right? Well I don't believe it is. This is an encyclopedia, not the news. Keep it clear and consistent. Reliable sources are only part of it. It has to be understood by the reader. What is it? I am taking out incorrect information based on the subject matter, not by news reports. Lets be better than that. Consistent and understandable. The numbers with the wording do not match up! That's part of the problem, not the "reliable" sources. The article has to make sense. Jeeny 06:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to complain about the appearance of SmackBot. I had to undo revisions created by the bot over at Ork (Warhammer 40,000). The bot, or someone else, removed tags so that they only covered parts of the name. I don't know why anyone would do this, and I don't think that its right for an automated program to go around like that causing all sorts of problems probably in areas that don't have constant vigilence. Is there anything that can be done? Thanks. SanchiTachi 17:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any direct control over SmackBot, other than blocking it in emergencies. I suggest you leave a message on Smackbot's talk page, which the bot operator will check and correct anything. Generally, SmackBot works most of the time, and errors like the one you experienced rarely occur and when they do, they don't cause much damage. I mean, if you think about it, it really didn't do any permanent damage: you were easily able to revert it back to the correct version. To be honest, I don't know too much about Wikipedia bots, but I do know that SmackBot messes up every now and then, but its mistakes are not that bad. In summary, I cannot actually do anything, and I suggest you bring it up on Smackbot's talk, and just revert any errors yourself. Now, on the other hand, if SmackBot is making significant errors to article after article after article, and causing mass disruption, I will temporarily block it. If that is the case, please let me or another administrator know IMMEDIATELY.
Thanks for the heads up though, ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Calm down, I only removed it once. And I removed it because the emphasis on "law-abiding citizens" makes it a POV statement. Free Republic and a Gun Owner's Coalition hardly counts as a neutral sources, and there is already a section on the gun rights debate. Having this information in the section on his preparation makes it POV pushing. Natalie 18:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you can put all of those in one <ref> tag. It might make it look neater. Coemgenus 18:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for semi-protecting. I didn't realize that only a sysop can semi-protect, but the vandals were getting a tad ridiculo, so i tried, and apparently it worked out in the long run.
Thanks again. Motor.on 19:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the one taking it out, I'm the one putting it in, liek it's supposed to be. Violask81976 19:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Sure, I'm willing to do it. Do you think we have consensus for this approach? Johntex\talk 01:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Regrettably, I know nothing about the That's So Raven series and I cannot help with distinguishing cruft from serious stuff in it. Anthony Appleyard 20:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the VT article is a highly contentious topic, with a high propensity for vandalism. There have been some vandal IP's that have taken a disliking to my reverting of their actions on this page, as well as others. First of all, let me point out several things:
I don't take kindly to IP addresses with an extensive history of vandalism, including one with 4 blocks of lengths up to 1 month, for blatant, disgusting vandalism, attempting to misrepresent policy to me and insinuating that I am in any way like them. Such users are not welcome on my talk page.⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 17:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool. That would be interesting. Natalie 22:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Swatjester/archive8 and thank you for your support on my recent request for adminship. Unfortunately, the request failed, however I aim to improve the concerns that were brought up and hopefully bring myself up to the standards of admin. Once again, I thank you for your support. --KzTalk• Contribs 12:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
howdy Swatjester.... another User:Dreamz rosez sock: Indicators 768 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). :-( ITAQALLAH 05:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You wouldn't happen to have any relation to a gaming clan from around 2000ish? -JE 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Although the above phrase itself did not appear in that case, Cantwell's conviction for breach of the peace was overturned on the grounds that expressing his own opinion, peaceably and non-coercively, should not be made punishable by the fact that some of his listeners felt offended enough to become violent. Mutato nomine, de nobis fabula narratur. -- Ben TALK/HIST 13:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
In which court are you referring? The SCOTUS overturned the case on grounds that a state statute requiring a permit to solicit for religious purposes constituted a prior restraint, and denied Cantwell his right to due process. The issue of law was not over how many people complained, the issue of law was whether proclaiming a message in a hostile environment constitutes a threat to public order, and the court found that it did not, and that the state had no constitutional right to prior restraint. Because of that, it was an undue violation of their constitutional right to free exercise of religion, enforced upon the state through the 14th amendment incorporation doctrine. From the case: "Such a censorship of religion as the means of determining its right to survive is a denial of liberty protected by the First Amendment and included in the liberty which is within the protection of the Fourteenth." and "[T]o condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution." The case has nothing to do with the concept of a "heckler's veto", so far as I can tell. It was merely over whether the state could require a license, which the court took liberally in their decision to provide a broad holding incorporating part of the 1st amendment to the states. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 16:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm referring to this decision. The third count against the defendants involved the permit law you mention; the fifth count "charged commission of the common law offense of inciting a breach of the peace" -- and, as the state supreme court had held, "not assault or breach of the peace or threats on Cantwell's part, but invoking or inciting others to breach of the peace". Your summary covers the SCOTUS ruling's first finding, which was on the third count. I'm referring to the SCOTUS ruling's second finding, which was on the fifth count. I hope that helps clarify the reference. -- Ben TALK/HIST 17:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It helps clarify it, as in, I see where you are referring, but I still respectfully disagree that it was a substantive point of law, certainly not what the case was memorable for. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 17:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That could explain your not making the connection at first... but after demonstrating so well that the first finding bore no resemblance to the summary, why not read on to see whether the second finding did, before asking "which court"? -- Ben TALK/HIST 19:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If you had any clue how many opinions I've read today......I fell asleep reading transcripts of oral arguments from "May it Please the Court" (the Marshall-Brennan audio recordings), and woke up to found that I'd drooled all over my brief on economic substantive due process and the Takings clause, and my section on midkiff is basically unusable. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 00:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
As for the "which court" remarks, well basically at that point in time I hadn't slept in god knows how long, and when I didn't see it in the first 5 seconds of skimming the opinion, I stopped looking and said "He must be looking at a lower appellate decision". Sorry, it's been a long week and I can't remember when I've last slept before today.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 00:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Swatjester,
Please check your e-mail. --Mihai cartoaje 04:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey Cary Bass said I should talk to you. My name is Sandy, and I am the communications manager for the foundation. Anyway, there is another reporter (Also from the NYT) who would like to do a longer feature story on Wikipedia and current news....Would you be willing to talk to him, and maybe find other volunteers for him? Any help would be really appreciated :) Email me directly at sordonez@wikimedia.org, and I will get you in touch with reporter. THis is a very good story for us :) (Since we do a kick ass job at current news ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.73.86.239 (talk • contribs)
Re: Whittles ← WhittlesLHS. I have raised a couple of issues about this request at WP:CHU/U, you might want to comment. WjBscribe 03:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
What can be done about someone doing such a vandalism as that? Its not just normal vandalism, but very racist and hateful. He used an ip so that he couldn't be stopped on whatever main name he probably uses. Could we get the page protected from non-registered users? Thanks. PS. His Contribution page has a lot of vandalism too. SanchiTachi 20:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Blocked the user. Revert his stuff. Semiprotection is not needed at the time, it's easy enough to just revert out. His contributions have been reverted. Thanks for the find. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank god you protected the Glock_19 page, I was actually blocked by an admin who (of course not a sock) blocked me for 3rr rule even though I was removing the repeated inclusion of the va tech series [[4]] look at the history to see the 4 named editors as usual, they tell admins I am blanking th epage, yet I blanked nothing and they convinced an admin (who I'm sure will be here to pipe in also as Asams10, er I mean um the admin's non sock account will be here) to well block me for 3rr! It seems the same 4 editors are to blame for the wanted inclusion , they are:
Asams10 Alyeska (which yawned at you) MiFeingerg, (a new user who well... reminds me of the user below) Pmanderson
They have started to attack a new page [[5]] , you might want to lock this down as well. I'm pretty sure soon they'll be on the Levi's jeans page as these were the pants Cho wore, so of course he (Opps haha I mean "they") will be over there soon enough.
4 editors. One has been active on wikipedia for a long time. 3 Have been reg in last 6 months. ALL make edits to same exact articles on wikipedia. Strange? Of course not don't even think it!
Of course your friend thinks that only special people can edit wikipedia, see his comments here:
Quote from page: rv: You're not admin and there is an ongoing discussion without a concensus. Wanna start playing by the rules yet? Didn't think so.
Read it here: [6]
He is trying to scare people off from editing the article and as soon as they are about to violate the 3rr , magically another one of the 4 above log in and have their 3 turns and so on.
Please lock it down, I take offense to his statement above and the CONSTANT harassment that I and other editors have faced from this person (OOPS I meant 4 again) who don't agree with them.
As well as now Asmas10 calling me a sock puppet [7] which I will gladly submit to checksum to proove it is not myself.
CINEGroup 02:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Playing by the rules is nothing to this cat, (Why should it be when you have an admin sock in your back pocket)
Sorry first time ever here and almost 30 minutes spent reporting this.
Blocked on April 25th 2007 [9] for 3rr also. Block expired and he's back again already with 3 more 3rr. Maybe time to really hammer this user who has been very sirupted on a number of wikipedia articles. CINEGroup 03:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
CINEGroup 03:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
(Quote from above) ":User CINEGroup has been blocked for harassment before" Why yes, Yes, I have, from your admin! You really shouldn't brag about it in email though!
I don't know what SWATJester will do actually. I have no vendetta against anyone actually, I just don't like sock puppets and the abuse they create, And I'm sure he can read through what your trying to tell him, (Though I think he will know by looking at your edits and doing a checksum and know better) CINEGroup 03:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey um please go find another chat board to play with, it was a message directed to SwatJester.
[10] As other admins who turned down your adminship request noted, you have a tendancy to "call" up "friends" to back yourself up with. And as far as trying to hide my talk page, no, I am trying to figure out how to archive it, maybe you could help me? As for trying to personal attack you? I'm sure that Mr. SWATJester here will enjoy reading your editing comments to users other then myself also! CINEGroup 03:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, im done playing this game. SWATJester, read the above, all the evidence and do what you need to do. CINEGroup 03:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh....why are the two of you arguing this on MY talk page? CINEGroup, I've come across Asams on other firearms related articles: while sometimes I think he gets a little too excited about things, he's generally knowledgable. Also, I have a conflict of interest regarding the virginia tech shootings and related articles, as I've been published in the new york times regarding the wikipedia entry, and am likely to be published again in the times regarding the same. I'm therefore limiting myself to enforcing policy (such as the consensus to remove the wikilink on Glock 19), and the like. Disputes between the two of you should go to WP:AN/I or Dispute resolution. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me know what you think of my proposal at the end of the talk page on the Walther P22. I don't know if the same intervention you made in the Glock 19 is warranted, but there certainly are wider implications which we're not considering.--Dali-Llama 16:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll check it out. From the last time I looked, I don't think the same intervention is warranted yet (there was clear consensus in Glock 19, the last time that I checked there was a 50-50 or so split, not very clear), but I'll certainly look into it. I have no procedural problem with the link being included on one article but not the other (despite, my belief that it should not be included, if the consensus of the community is that it should be on one , but not on the other, that's procedurally fine with me.)⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 16:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
You protected Walther P22 because of an edit war in which CINEGroup was a major participant. Said user has now been blocked indefinitely because of issuing personal threats; see discussion. Whether that ends the war I do not know; evidence suggests this person will attempt to evade the block. (No action necessary, and no need to reply.) --KSmrqT 00:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Because I respect your opinion far more than many of the other admins, I want to ask this question:
We are arguing about "redundant" pages over at the Warhammer 40,000 group. By that, I mean, pages that redirect to the some with little variability. Some may be capitals in the middle of long phrases, others may be the difference of a comma. I stand by those pages, because if you type in the wrong page in the browser, or someone mispells it, it would go to a "create new page" page and may lead to people creating pages thinking there isn't one already, then the real page disappears. Others have their own arguments, but yeah, I wanted to get your opinion. Thanks SanchiTachi 20:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I note two things wrong: the lowercase one is a mix of lowercase and uppercase. It should be all lowercase. The comma one doesn't actually seem all that likely to be inputted though, I'd probably support getting rid of it. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 15:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Dreamz rosez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been revert warring on Rafida again. I protected the article, but upon advice from Itaqallah, I unprotected, reverted to The Right Version and have blocked the Dreamz rosez account for 2 weeks. I didn't go to indef because your previous block was also a short one, and I'm sure you must have your reasons for that. I would be grateful if you could review this action. Thanks in advance, – Rianaऋ 17:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Wait, I didn't indef block Dreamz rosez? I could swear I did......If I didn't, it's a mistake on my part for some reason. In regards to the Rafida article, I defer to Itaqallah's advice, and agree that protection is not useful when it's so easy just to block the socks and revert. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 17:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You wrote about the that my mediation request at these articles was an "end around" community conensus. That is just not the case. I made that request in good faioth. I wanted to see what disinterested parties would say. If you look over the Talk pages at these articles carefully, you will see that the vote is quite close and there is nowhere near a consensus.
Respectfully, can you really consider yourself a disinterested party in this matter? Your Page notes that you are an expert in military tactics and equipment, as well as SWAT operations. This indicates you are a member of the gun culture. I respectfully suggest that you let someone else judge this. Griot 20:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey there Swatjester,
I just realized that you moved the STUB for Military brat that used to exist. Could you get that back for us somehow?Balloonman 06:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Swat, you're having back surgery? I hope all goes well. This is the first I have heard of any problems which might require surgery, apparently I've been very inattentive. :( KillerChihuahua?!? 10:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Your unilateral deletions on Age of Conan article were quite disruptive. Furthermore, your retaliatory mindset, veiled threat, and brusque manner on my Talk Page were equally disconcerting and in violation of civility. Now, in accordance with WP:DR and in the interests of assuming good faith, I shall disregard this behavior and discuss your edits in question.
First, sources and/or references could have been provided for those deleted paragraphs. If you review Wikipedia:Verifiability, the policy states:
“ | "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, [...]" | ” |
While focusing on the first part, you selectively ignored the majority of this paragraph. Without consulting the editors of a popular article or inserting source tags, you deleted mass sections of the article. When your deletion was reverted and a request given to discuss such deletions, you once again ignored the request and redid the deletions. For an administrator, this is truly disappointing behavior (WP:ANOT) and evocative of WP:OWN.
Second, you once again deleted imbedded sentences which did not apply to guilds or "fancruft," but to official initiatives by Funcom. These documented initiatives fall within WP:RS and WP:ATT. While the information regarding "guilds" can/should be removed from the article, the sentences pertaining to Funcom's fan initiatives and community relations can be sourced and, thus, should be restored. In short, these imbedded sentences do not fall under your generalized label of "unreferenced fancruft."
Finally, in accordance with WP:DR, I have taken the first step to try and reason with you. However, if you will continue to "own" the article and will not discuss the subject or permit me to restore several non-fancruft / non-guild related sentences you deleted under a generalized label, I shall be compelled to seek a Wikipedia:Third opinion or, as a last resort, request mediation.
-- Flask 22:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I also note out two major points: Any edit lacking a source may be removed and "Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
Therefore, I remain within policy to include the material.
I am crossposting this to your talk page to inform you what the result of your actions will be. I will continue to remove information from the article which violates policy. If you continue to be incivil, disruptive, and maintain "ownership" issues, as I have pointed out, and attempt to violate wikipedia policy, you may be blocked from editing. Simple as that. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: I have made a total of two edits, reverting unsourced information about a non-notable set of "guilds" for an unreleased videogame, all speculation. This is well within precedent of the WP:CVG project, as well as Wikipedia policy. As I have not significantly edit the article for content, but rather solely for policy enforcement, and my first edit was brutally and incivilly attacked by Flask, I'm maintaining the ability to use administrative action to enforce policy. Diffs: my original removal of information, Flask's disruptive attack on me for deletion including threats, my revert and response, citing policy (current version. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to heavily rely on Wikipedia policies and your administrator privileges instead of rationally discussing the article editing in question. If you are unable to discuss article editing without throwing a rule-book at people, then I do not see how we can resolve this dispute.
I shall try once more:
Again, I do not wish to restore the guild-specific, "unreferenced fancruft" information. I wish to salvage the imbedded sentences pertaining to Funcom's community initiatives which can be sourced and/or referenced. This is non-fancruft information that you included in your unilateral, generalized deletions.
In regards to your latest threats, I believe your unilateral approach of mass deletions without discussion and your non-collaborative, my-way-or-the-highway attitude towards article editing is contrary to the cornerstones of Wikipedia. This online encyclopedia is a collaborative project which requires editors to work together. Alarmingly, you also use the administrator title to bully other editors into submission. This is, again, not appropriate behavior for a Wikipedia administrator.
If you "block" me for disagreeing with you and disliking your non-collaborative style of editing, then I believe no further proof is needed in regards to this situation.
-- Flask 22:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
How is "Those associated with the Free Software Movement and other groups opposed to the expansion of intellectual property rights criticize the prima facie absurdity of banning a number." POV? Your replacement is kinda awkward, as well as ambiguous, and all things being equal, I'd rather use the original. 24.226.24.195 01:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Oh, forgot to login. Washod 01:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I edited this out in order to update to where it is. I made a survey page for a vote. The dispute is basically between what is the standard for "British" spelling, the Oxford English Dictionary or "popular opinion." The OED does not acknowledge that "ise" is proper, but "ise" is common in England. It is all to settle a prevalent editing trend over the past few months in the Warhammer pages (because the game was founded by Brits and played by many Americans) that caused this issue to become disputed. The Survey is Here. The more people the merrier. I'm trying to drum up over 10 people to participate in the survey, hence why I wanted your opinion. SanchiTachi 23:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
No offense SanchiTachi, but I try not to get involved with American vs. British english debates. I just get frustrated, and it's a trivial detail since it doesn't truly affect the article. Personally, I'd go with -ize, but that's just me. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 00:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Swatjester: You reverted my changes to the Vanderbilt article without any explanation. Those were good-faith edits, and I do not believe it was proper to revert them per Wikipedia:Revert. The calls for evidentiary support were all proper as per Wikipedia policy, e.g., Wikipedia:Notability. Moreover, Al Gore is an alum. Thus, since my changes all appear appropriate, I wanted to solicit an explanation for your action.
Also, you deleted Bill Samuels, Jr. from the list of notable alums, explaining that "redlink = not notable." None of Paul Atkins, Robert Hays, Jr., Jim Neal, Paul Ney, Jr., John T. Nixon, Aleta Trauger, nor Jody Wagner have wikipedia articles. Moreover, I don't think that having a Wikipedia renders one notable; rather, the class of people who have wikipedia articles is a subset of the broader class of actually notable people.
Cka3n 06:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
1: they'd have to be reverted anyway, and 2, I disagree with them
2: federal judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate. That's inherent notability, standard across the board. Company's have varying degrees of notability.
3: Not necessarily.
4. The standard for inclusion is verifiability. Vanderbilt is a reliable, peer reviewed source, due to its regulation by the American Bar Association. It doesn't get much more objective than that. Major law school faculty are almost ALWAYS notable: they are the reason that schools are considered better than one another.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Cka3n 12:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF 12:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, this user [12], aka User:Devin79, whom you may remember from this RFC [13] and from personal attacks on both yourself and myself [14], is back after a six month ban and is now up to his old tricks. Could we get him banned again please, as all he contributes are edit wars. Thanks, Jdorney 14:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Good man, thanks. Jdorney 21:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I am at a total loss as to what you consider merits inclusion in to the catagory famous dogs. Currently Endal is an exhibit in the Animal's War display in the Imperial war museum,http://north.iwm.org.uk/server/show/conEvent.1409 Endal was voted dog of the Millennium in 1991 and holder of the highest award for animal bravery in peace time. Still I will progres the artilc etill it meets the exacting standards requiredEndal and Allen 20:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Swatjester, just thought you might like to know the specifics of WP:IAR and its status as a 'policy'. According to its edit history, Jimbo changed the tag on the article on 19 August, 2006 from the one stating 'This concept is important to Wikipedia. The nature of the concept, however, makes pinning it down as "official policy" or a "guideline" unhelpful and possibly paradoxical. It has a long tradition, so please consider the reasons this page exists before editing it.' to the policy tag, whilst stating 'IAR is policy, always has been'. So I think that indicates that the concept has always been policy although it didn't always use the official policy tag due to its paradoxical nature. Cheers, Localzuk(talk) 14:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Swatjester,
Regarding your point [15], while I agree that Kirby's diff did look like strange and specially for that reason, I think we should look back at the history of relation of these two users. Sometimes, there are hidden information/background. In many cases, the situation is not black and white. Let me just provide some one example about User:Matt57. If you take a look Islam and animals, you can see many images with apocryphal traditions attributed to Muhammad. These are all added by user:Matt57. For example, please take a look at this image: Here is the full quote from the source: "In a fashion similar to European medieval folklore, black dogs, in particular, were viewed ominously in the Islamic tradition.[1] According to one tradition attributed to Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, black dogs are evil, or even devils, in animal form.[2] Although this report did reflect a part of pre-Islamic Arab mythology, it had a limited impact upon Islamic law. The vast majority of Muslim jurists considered this particular tradition to be falsely attributed to the Prophet, and therefore, apocryphal." What is more is that User:Matt57 has hidden:" The vast majority of Muslim jurists considered this particular tradition to be falsely attributed to the Prophet, and therefore, apocryphal" part. There is no mention of that in the article.
I just provided this example to show that the situation is somewhat more complex that what it may seem. Cheers, --Aminz 08:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not all that familiar with the issue at hand. I just felt like making a sarcastic remark about an argument I felt was dumb, and everytime I see coelacan's name I end up thinking about ocean creatures (it sounds like cetacean or cephalopod or something in my head).
My actual thoughts about Kirbytime, are that he's an extremely pro-palestinian, anti-israeli biased editor, who does not have a good civility record. However, interestingly enough all my experiences with him have been rather good, with the exception of some of his comments on AN/I about israel that I take exception to. However, I realize he's got a bad reputation and it's probably rightfully earned. I also realize that this argument is far more complex than it seems. That's why I'm not involved with it. I just felt like making a slight joke to lighten the mood a bit: I really don't care much about whatever it is they;re arguing over. Plus, my guess is that Kirbytime would not like my opinions regarding Islam.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 14:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
.
Hello Swatjester. Looking over the long argument regarding the Virginia Tech massacre dispute, I was wondering if perhaps the entire thing should be archived. Due to the nature of a discussion page, there will doubtless be further conversations and discussions on various features or events regarding the weapon further down the line. This will only serve to increase the article's already massive length even further, bt cannot be avoided. Were the bulk of the VTech discussion removed, it would drastically reduce the page's length and would seem a logical move. What do you think?
By the way, I'm not sure how to archive a discussion. I just thought that, as an administrator, you'd be likely to know how to go about such a thing should you decide to do so. Cheers. Gamer Junkie 04:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Lightsaberfun.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the ((GFDL-self-no-disclaimers)) tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as ((non-free fair use in|article name)) or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Iamunknown 05:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Proposed_Addition_to_the_Policy user:Lode Runner As you can see, the person is quite vulgar (snivling rules lawyers) and doesn't seem to want to improve Wikipedia, but instead edit the rules so he could "win" debates. Wikipedia isn't for debates, but for putting up verifiable information. However, that guy wants to get rid of verifiable information and wants it that way to "win." I don't think that guy ever took the proper steps to mediate nor contacted an admin to deal with issues. Instead, I believe that he just wants to edit things and do it all himself. I put forth his own words to show that I am not basing this on original research:
"Can we please just talk, discuss and debate the issue rationally and worry about the citation only when people start talking about making specific changes?"
But if you notice, how can you base changes on things that aren't even sourced? Wiki is not for talk or discussion. Its about posting verifiable information with consensus. I feel that the poster would best be suited in a chatroom and not in the talk areas of Wiki pages. SanchiTachi 23:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
They are now trying to cite IAR as a reason to get rid of a major rule, even though the WP:RFC page says "With such proposals, remember the Five pillars that fundamentally define Wikipedia's character. Remember the three content policies whose principles are absolute and non-negotiable: Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. Also, remember What Wikipedia is not." and Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions says "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly (such as content-related policies/guidelines like Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research)." SanchiTachi 01:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Can some of these people be put on block or suspended for a few days until they realize that Wiki Rules do not allow for anarchy and that they don't have the right to spam up the talk page of rules in order to claim, without any proof, that Admin don't have the right to make any claims about rules as it would be OR? SanchiTachi 19:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we assume good faith when the user has "declared war" on people who he deems as "rules lawyers" and introduces generalized attacks upon them all? His page declaring such a war was made on " 03:35, 6 May 2007." It is currently May 8th.
This was all before I ever entered into the conversation. As you can see from my contributions, I have been busy with contributions (some major, some minor) during this whole thing. I also had to deal with a few vandalism attacks on the Warhammer pages, and I helped user:Sojourner001 clean up his accidental mistake before he would be attacked for vandalism, and then helped come to terms with some of his conflicts about what happened to the Tyranids page so he would be comfortable with the changes since he departed (which resulted in a few other pages made/merged to tidy up the article and make it more readable).
If you still believe that my actions are inappropriate, then I will accept your decision. I only put the above as a defense of my character and my actions during this. SanchiTachi 06:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
05:38, 8 May 2007
We have to assume good faith until we have convincing evidence that to continue to do so will be detrimental to the encyclopedia. I'm not impugning your character, just saying you're getting a bit heated and you need to cool off a bit. Lode Runner was wrong too, and he was blocked for 24 hr for it. Still, that doesn't excuse incivility. Just cool off a bit and you'll be alright; this isn't a statement on your character. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
...for the vote of confidence. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, the rewritten page looks amazing and was far better then the first draft that I submitted. I am speechless that someone else took assistance for this article and I am very grateful. --Semper Fidelis 13:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I answered you here Anthere 21:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)