User talk:Swatjester/archive8

Again personal attack by user CPTGbr

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)

Mohammad Badshah Qadri

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)

Wikistock Deletion

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)

Problem with a user

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)

Help

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)

Five clicks to Jesus

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)

Chink AfD

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)

User:Burgz33

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)

Personal attacks by User:Faranbazu

Greetings. If you have time, could you please have a look at this [3], thanks! Shervink 13:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

RFA

Hey. Thanks for supporting my RFA. It ended successfully. SGGH 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I put in references, added sources and presented verifiable data:

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)

Inbox Comments Go Here

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 never bit you. As for your reasoning, please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael S. Greco

I just rewrote the article, hopefully without conflict of interest. What do you think?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 18:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

150 Ent

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)

Your opinion please...

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)

Geo Swan, I agree that HanzoHattori has been uncivil, but his statement that you have been spamming is not a personal attack. Poor choice of words, perhaps, but he is criticizing your editing, not your character. —Psychonaut 23:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Try discussing it at WP:AN/I.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the advice.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 02:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your Support on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a final tally of 89/1/1. If there's anything I can help with, then you know where to find me. Cheers. - Michael Billington (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007

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)

Cheetah Girls Image

• I don't care. Delete the image, although it WAS used to promte the tour, and it was a flyer that I scanned onto my computer to use. Jtervin 03:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dreamz rosez (talk · contribs)

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)

Restoring of Internet Troll Squads after AfD was endorsed

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)

Oh, don't feed the troll.

He's being thick strictly for the sake of it now. HalfShadow 22:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: "confused"

RE: Your question, "yes".  :-) A jester like yourself, should certainly understand.  :-p Tomer^talk 02:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Fnagaton

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

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)

When was the last time...

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)

Trying to think.....trying to think....What was my last edit to Freedom of movement? BD2412 showed me the article, and it's the latest article that I've significantly researched and tried to improve. I'm pretty sure everything since then, with a few exceptions has been AFD, CSD, copyediting, warning vandals etc. You know, April 1st would be a good admin day....cascading full protection on every page of the project for 24 hours: bingo! no april fools vandalism, and we actually get to let go and enjoy ourselves for 24 hours! God wikipedia is like crack: you hate yourself for continuing to edit, but you can't stop and you have to get your fix. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your help

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)

Nope, actually ran across it through your talk page, and then searched contributions from the vandals. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kzrulzuall

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)

Pot.....kettle.....black. Your comments are a clear WP:POINT violation. Second, you have no grounds to threaten me with a block, nor could you actually enforce one if you did since you lack that button. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Caution: Personal attack

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)

reported to the foundation

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)

Cross-posted. Swatjester, Dakval was describing User:ScienceApologist's mention that some guy name McRae lied to his publisher about his credentials. Dakval was not making a legal threat. I don't think it even borders on that. Rather, ScienceApologist is making a statement that if, untrue, would be libelous. I'm not privy to the whole debate there. --Otheus 06:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

What part of "I have reported YOUR recent behaviour" refers to ScienceApologist? He was explicitly referring to me. As for the libelous aspect of it, it's not as black and white as that. Truth is not the only affirmative defense to libel. As I understand it as a law student (and full disclosure, I have not directly hit libel/slander yet), the burden of proof for a libel claim lies upon the plaintiff to show actual defamation, and the defendant has quite a few affirmative defenses (truth, public figure, opinion, etc.). But the fact is, we just don't argue over these things on wikipedia, because we are not lawyers for the foundation, and we are not being sued. Davkal's behavior had the intent of a chilling action on ScienceApologists edits. If Davkal wishes to pursue a libel claim, he needs to do it the proper way: File a complaint with the foundation (which usually results in a block for the complainer due to policy). ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. Davkal is headed the way of the exit, and needs to mend his ways. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, I was not responding to Dakval's message above; I really should have made this clear with more judicious formatting and with the following diff. I am not trying to make an issue between us! Rather when you entered to moderate, as you did here, your assessment of the situation ("consider yourself ... warned") indicated that Dakval's "bordering" was more serious than just bordering. Above, I was trying to point out why I think you're wrong about your assessment.

JzG is probably right; Dakval is currently blocked for evading a block of 4RR. And in my content dispute with him at Dowsing, I have little appreciation or patience for his anti-rational thinking. But due to a personality defect, I tend to stick up for unfairness toward the underdog. --Otheus 15:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

See comments on your talk page. But libel allegations, unless their consistent with a WP:BLP related article, generally tend to fall under the WP:NLT category, which mandates an indef block for the duration of the complaint. Just following policy. Note again, that I didn't say he violated it, I said he bordered on violating it. It's the same thing we do with the 3 Revert Rule: if you're gaming the system just short of violation repeatedly, you're violating the spirit of the rule as opposed to the letter, and we block anyway. Same thing here. His actions are having a chilling effect on other editor's contributions to the article, and it's time for that to stop. The next time he borders on, or crosses the line of a legal threat, he's blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go with that. Thank you very much for taking the time to clarify that to me. --Otheus 19:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

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)

Boston Legal/That's so Raven

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)

I think that the solution discussed at WP:AN/I is the way to go (and , if it has the same plethora of episode-articles, on this "Boston Legal" too. I've never heard of either of them, personally, though of course that's not the point. How would you like me to help? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't create the articles for TSR and I don't watch the show. I just think your reasoning for proding the article "A famous show like Boston Legal" doesn't have such a category - well that just seemed ridiculous! Postcard Cathy 14:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech

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'm sorry.....CNN, Foxnews, AP, Reuters, Yahoo News, all reporting the same thing and you say it's unreliable? That's patently ridiculous. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi There

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)

Thanks for your reply. I just wanted to note that I wouldn't have said anything, except that I looked at some of its edits to find out if it has happened today, and there were so many edits that its basically impossible for someone like me to check them all. I'm old fashion. I don't like programs like that. SanchiTachi 17:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's confusing for me too, but yeah.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

gun free zones

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'm fine with the rephrased addition - not sure if that's your work or not. The version that I removed was POV, which is why I removed it. Natalie 18:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If I removed it a second time it was an accident. I understand that the laws forbid "law abiding citizens" from bringing guns onto school property, but that's not why they're passed. They forbid everyone, law-abiding, somewhat law-abiding, or not law-abiding, from carrying a gun on the property. By emphasizing "law-abiding" you are emphasizing one controversial aspect of the law, which seems like POV-pushing to me. Look at this particular case - Cho Sueng-hui was a law-abiding citizen when he purchased his guns and brought them on campus. He became a criminal later, but at the point that he bought the guns he was not one. But like I said, the current version, which simply points out that having a gun on campus was illegal, seems fine to me. Natalie 18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, we keep typing at the same time. Damn breaking news. Natalie 18:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, the edit conflicts are insane. I was much happier following this last night after everyone normal went to bed. Natalie 18:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Gun-free schools

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)

I am the worlds suckiest ref tag user, as evidenced by my messup earlier with the closing slash. What I intend to do is to add all the refs in first, to make sure I have them all, and then clean them up into one big ref tag. Due to my slow mobile broadband card, this is easier for me to do. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made that mistake with the closing slash many times myself. Those kinds of mistakes are easy to make on an article moving this quickly. Coemgenus 18:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Virginia Tech

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)

Actually, i guess i was wrong. Whatever. Thanks anyways, even if it wasn't the correct thing to do.Motor.on 19:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

revision

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)

VT Main/Stub Articles

Sure, I'm willing to do it. Do you think we have consensus for this approach? Johntex\^talk 01:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Very true. It looks like at least one other person supoorted the idea on the talk page, while no one has specifically opposed it. I notice that the sub-article on the victim list is at AfD, with the commenting trending towards "keep" it seems. I think I will watch that play out a little longer before spending the time to create another sub-article. Johntex\^talk 03:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I page-history-merged Template:TSR to Template:That's So Raven

• I page-history-merged Template:TSR to Template:That's So Raven.

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)

Statement regarding Virginia Tech massacre to anyone reading my talk page

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:

1. Removing reliably sourced, verifiable information without consensus, is vandalism. From WP:VAN "Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus." This is vandalism, and is an exception to the 3RR.

1. According to the 3RR, reversion of simple vandalism is NOT a revert. Furthermore, according to that page "Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not such will not breach the rule".

1. IP Addresses do not have the right to vote on wikipedia. This is well established: their voices are not heard in discussions. Since their voices are not heard, they cannot validly participate in discussions, including those regarding enforcement of wikipedia policy (further supported by the fact that IP addresses cannot enforce policy due to lack of method, and lack of community trust). Therefore, any warnings issued by an IP address are invalid, will not be considered, and will be immediately removed.

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)

New York Times

Cool. That would be interesting. Natalie 22:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

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. --Kz^{Talk• Contribs} 12:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Rafida

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)

Checking. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, keep em coming. User indef blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Dreamz rosez is back, and has resumed his reverting. ITAQALLAH 10:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

+ Moony nights (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ITAQALLAH 14:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you Swatjester. i prefer to focus on editing, i don't really consider myself to be sysop material. even then, i don't believe i have earned the community's trust, especially as i edit on a space where most articles are extremely contentious and it's difficult to make most people happy. there are a lack of admins patrolling this space, but i think AIV, AN/I and other such pages should suffice in the meantime. sorry to have got you involved in all the business at Rafida, he seems rather determined. ITAQALLAH 19:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. However, I'm of the opinion that admins should not shy away from contentious articles: in fact that is where we are most needed. Especially when it's thrown in that policy dictates we should not use our tools when we're involved in the editing in the article (in most cases), that allows us to maintain a seperation of editorialship and sysop-ship on contentious articles. From what I've seen, you are an upstanding editor, even in an extremely difficult area, and that, to me, deserves special consideration. I think that given that, you'd likely have the community's trust. Anyway besides, what do you have to lose? As for Rafida, I'm happy to continue taking care of it, until such time that he goes away. Clearly you are within policy in fixing the guy's vandalism (I believe he is the iraqi dinar vandal, yes?), and it takes less than 1 minute of my time to check his contribs and hit the block button. Hell, with the latest mediawiki update, I don't even need to type in that he is a sockpuppet: that is a formatted option in the block log now. Eventually he'll get tired of not having any progress, and having to wait 4 days or so before the next vandalism. Or, maybe he won't, and he'll keep wasting time, but either way he's not succeeding, and I'm not getting bored with it. Anyway, if you would reconsider the adminstration nomination, I'd gladly nominate you, even just to see what happens with it. If not, my hat is off to you anyway. I just like to see fine upstanding editors be noted for their efforts.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 19:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

SWAT.. Clan/Guild?

You wouldn't happen to have any relation to a gaming clan from around 2000ish? -JE 20:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I just wondered if you were with a group of folks I used to game with back in the day :) Their guild was "SWAT". I believe they were more of a CS clan than anything else, but they did jump into the MMORPG scene back then, Legend of Mir 2, back before we even knew what a real MMORPG was. Old times, but fun times, hence why I was wondering if you had any relation to them :) --JE 07:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Heckler's veto

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)

e-mail

Hi Swatjester,

Please check your e-mail. --Mihai cartoaje 04:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Foundation Office

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)

Usurpation request

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)

A Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warhammer_40%2C000&curid=89633&diff=126225051&oldid=126224846

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)

glock_19 and waltherp22

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)

User:Asams10 reported by CINEGroup (Result:)

Sorry first time ever here and almost 30 minutes spent reporting this.

[8]

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)

User CINEGroup has been blocked for harassment before and he is doing the same thing again. Please look at his edit history and block history shortly. He's got some sort of vendetta against not only me but the dozens of other users. Currently, he's leaving trolling messages on my talk page and going through my past edits of other unrelated articles to try and harass me. It seems he's found you thinking you will rule in his favor. Thanks for your time.--Asams10 03:14, 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)

Okay, email? My admin? I'm lost completely. If you're acusing me of being a sock puppet, an admin, or sending you emails, I'm just going to have to shake my head. You're personally attacking me for some reason and I suspect it's because you just can't control yourself. Stop. Maybe I'm ignorant, but I've been watching your edits for a short time. You just moved your talk page in its entirety to another page. To hide it? --Asams10 03:25, 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)

Again with the personal attacks. --Asams10 03:36, 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)

Just to let you know, this was reported at WP:AN3RR. I have declined to block.[11] Peace, ··coelacan 04:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll defer to your decision then. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Swat, let's get this Firearm discussion organized

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)

Re: Walther P22

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.) --KSmrq^T 00:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I just got back to the house and went hunting CINEGroup edits. I'd suspect that he'll be back in another form soon enough. If we could, is it possible to remove his comments and edits in their entirety. Nothing I noted he did was in good faith. Perhaps this is the wrong forum for this, but I'm a gun nut, not a wikipedia nut.--Asams10 01:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I put an expiration on the Walther P22 page. If it hasn't been unprotected by the next time I get a chance to check (I can't right now I'm on the road), I will unprotect....no later than tomorrow or so. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A New Question

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)

You mean "redirects"....redirects for common misspellings are definitely good, or with variations on capitals. However, misspellings that are not at all likely to be typed (For example, on the page Court system, a redirect from Cuort ssytem) are candidates for speedy deletion. Basically, it's the consensus of the community: make some good redirects, but no need to go overboard with every possible misspelling. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, which is what I thought. Now here is the situation. There are two redirects up for question: one is with a lower case version of the other (the page was moved), and the other is the title without commas thrown in (the title is length and has three commas). SanchiTachi 02:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They both sound ok to me, but would you mind providing the two links? Also a link to where the argument is taking place?⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Warhammer_40%2C000#Votes_for_deletion You can see where I am getting frustrated by Pak. He goes around misquoting Out of Universe Rules (he tries to claim that he quashes any description of the fiction, even though if you source it and provide a summary, especially when its only one paragraph for a 50 page document or so, its quite alright), Notability rules, etc. I never really liked actions like that, because they are eating the newbie, and we are lacking much enthusiastic participation in our group because of too much of the newbie chasing.

Here are the three links. I'm keeping them in html form so you don't have to worry about the redirects. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weapons%2C_Equipment%2C_and_Vehicles_of_the_Craftworld_Eldar_%28Warhammer_40%2C000%29&redirect=no http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Weapons%2C_equipment%2C_and_vehicles_of_the_Craftworld_Eldar_%28Warhammer_40%2C000%29&redirect=no

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons%2C_equipment_and_vehicles_of_the_Craftworld_Eldar_%28Warhammer_40%2C000%29

SanchiTachi 15:25, 30 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)

Iraqi dinar vandal back

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, – Riana_ऋ 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)

OK, thanks! I wondered a little :) I was uncomfortable with protecting from the outset, but now that I understand the situation better I'll make sure the article remains unprotected, and I'll say as much to any further requests at RFPP (which is how I came across the article). Thanks for the help, – Riana_ऋ 17:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My mad cow must be acting up again. Anyway since it looked like you were wanting to go to indef, I extended your block to indef for Dreamz rosez.....the sheer disruption his socks are causing anyway earn it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Wanting to go indef" makes me sound rather bloodthirsty! :p As for the firearms articles, certainly. Glad to help :) Have fun travelling. – Riana_ऋ 18:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to pop out of here pretty soon myself, but I'll have a look at the case tomorrow (around 12:00 UTC by the looks of things). Cheers, – Riana_ऋ 18:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Walther P22 and Glock 19

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)

Quite actually I view it as the oppposite: my credentials establish me as a credible expert in the field. You'll notice that I am not editing for content: I am taking an administrative standpoint on the article to stay in line with our policies. Regarding the end around portion, I will respond to that on your talk page to ensure you see it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I consider myself somewhat of an expert in the field too, having been in triage and witnessed many, many shooting victims at different urban hospitals. But be that as it may, I'm going to take it on the chin, move on, and not debate at these articles any longer. Thanks for your thoughtful replies to my query. Griot 21:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Military brat

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)

NOTE: I also requested this on ANI since I don't know if you've gone to bed or not ;-)Balloonman 06:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. BTW, I didn't move it, it was also deleted by Deltabeignet. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Surgery?

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)

Age of Conan

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)

sigh. Ok let me start by addressing your unfounded and blatantly false accusations, in order.

1. disruptive editing

• I made a single edit removing completely unsourced material regarding unreleased speculation on a videogame. And you immediately accuse me of disruptive editing?

1. veiled threat

• In your very first revert of my removal, you threatened me that if I did not stop you would report me to an administrator. The veiled threat came from you; all I did was inform you that I was such an administrator. (Note: and as such, I've been trusted by the community to have a valid understanding of policy).

1. civil violation

• My comments were in no way incivil: I was removing material per policy, which you still have not found a reasoning for inclusion. Yet you immediately threatened me in an edit summary, and threw false accusations at me. Incivility where?

1. WP:V violation

• The very first sentences on WP:V state:

  Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.

  Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.

  The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

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.

1. WP:OWN violation

• As I mentioned before: it was my first edit to the page. I never claimed ownership once: in fact you have claimed ownership by your statement "...or permit me to restore several..."

Result

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)

Administrative note to outside viewers

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)

Response

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)

I seem unable to discuss editing without throwing a rule-book, because the rules apply to EVERYONE. You are not special, you are just as restricted by policy as I am. Secondly, I have never thrown my title around as an administrator: you were the one who brought it up when you threatened to "report" me to one, while accusing me in bad faith of vandalism. I have no intention of contributing to the article for content. I do have an intention of maintaining the integrity of articles across Wikipedia, and you are significantly disrupting that. If you cannot agree with that, please file a complaint over my behavior at WP:AN/I .And once more, do not accuse me of a "non-collaborative" style of editing when it was you who threatened me after my first edit. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the bottom line-- Policy is on my side, and I have no intention of sitting here any longer and listening to you maintain false accusations and incivility on my talk page. I will not discuss this topic any further here: you may, as I mentioned above, report my behavior at WP:AN/I, however, you are asked to no longer edit my talk page. Further disruption, incivility, and personal attacks, will not be tolerated. I cannot possibly make that any clearer to you. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And I, too, have no intention of sitting here any longer and listening to a tyrannical administrator who does not wish to discuss/resolve the issue or calmly find an answer to the dispute. And, yes, as we are both subject to the rules, I shall tender a complaint. Farewell. -- Flask 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting popcorn. This should be fun. Flask, I hope you re-read your post and realize how idiotic it sounds when you call Swat a "tyrannical administrator" because he - gasp! - follows policy! KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm cooking shrimp. I ate at bubba gump's shrimp co the other day, and their cajun shrimp was absolutely delicious. I'm trying to find a good recipe for it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive - this is the actual recipe. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness you are amazing. I ended up coming up with my own little version, but this is so close to what I had prepared, I may as well follow it: only thing I missed was the worcestershire sauce. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

HD DVD encryption key

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)

My problem was with the prima facie remark: that has a distinct legal definition and the absurdity or not is under dispute, obviously. If was prima facie, there would be no room for dispute. Now granted, all I did was remove the words prima facie...I tried to fix the grammar a little bit, but if it's off my apologies. However, the POV words are prima facie: everything else is ok. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah... I hadn't read the article on prima facie, and wasn't aware of the legal meaning. I was using it in the sense used in philosophical discourse which, despite what the article says, has a much more neutral connotation, something like, "It looks this way on the surface, but if we look deeper it may or may not hold up." Washod 02:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I figured as much, since that's the way the rest of the language sounded but yeah, that's not how it means legally. Prima facie is used in law quite a bit in motions for summary judgement: The defendant will file a motion for dismissal because the plaintiff failed to present a prima facie case (meaning that on its own weight, the case is not enough to convict, before the defense ever gets brought up. It's pretty well explained in the article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article mentions the philosophical definition of it too...you may want to add to that section if you can, it's a little brief and you seem to be knowledgable about it in the rhetoric aspect. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

British English

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)

Vanderbilt reversion

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)

Overuse of the fact template is distracting visually, and unnecessary, when it could be replaced with a single unreferenced template. As for the other alums, some of them are inherently notable (John Nixon for example as a federal judge) and others are not. If they are notable, an article will eventually be started about them, but for right now, it's commonly accepted that redlinked entries do not generally belong in sections of "notable" people. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, many of your fact tags were regarding statements like "noted attorney" or "noted economist" etc. The links provided under the faculty section clearly establish the factual validity of such statements. Therefore, not only are the fact templates visually distracting, and excessively overused, but they are inappropriate as well. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the prompt response, I would note:

1) if a single referenced template is preferred to the requests for support, I believe the proper response would have been to edit the article, not to revert my changes;

2) I don't know what inherently notable means, but I am not sure how being one of thousands of federal judges is any more "inherently notable" than being the President of a significant corporation;

3) the standards for notability for an article are, I believe, different than the standards for notability to include as text within an article, thus deleting the brackets would have been more appropriate edit than reversion;

4) Certainly, Vanderbilt has a vested interest in promoting all of its academics as notable. Unless virtually every member of the law school's faculty is going to be considered notable, I think it is fair to ask for third-party authority.

Cka3n 07:04, 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)

1. For my edification, are you referring to a particular Wikipedia standard when you say that going through the nomination and confirmation process is inherent notability?

2. Also, while companies certainly can have varying degrees of notability, the company at issue here is notable (or, at least, has its own Wikipedia page).

3. Although I welcome being pointed to something showing that I am incorrect, I do not believe the ABA engages in any serious review of the promotional materials produced by law schools such as their websites. Vanderbilt is not a peer-reviewed source. Law schools are rather well-known for producting, to use a term fashioned elsewhere, "law porn." Moreover, even if major law school faculty are almost ALWAYS notable, that doesn't mean that these particular faculty are themselves all notable, that the facts outlined in the notable faculty section are facts relevant to these faculty being allegedly notable (e.g., that one of them had a book published this year of unknown reception), nor that the particular claims made regarding each of these particular faculty do not need support. Thus, we are back where we started, needing to consider whether the particular claims made in support of the notability assertions are appropriate.

As you and I appear to not be any closer to agreeing, I am going to note these issues on the Vanderbilt talk page so as to solicit the opinions of other editors.

Cka3n 12:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me, I welcome the outside opinion. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms

Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF 12:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Banned user back

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)

Endal dog

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)

Judging from your username, I sense a conflict of interest. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

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)

IAR

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)

While in August 19, jimbo did change it to guideline, it was disputed for some time afterwards.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just thought I'd let you know when it was done as you didn't seem to know. Cheers, Localzuk^(talk) 19:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI

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.

File:620768 52069243.jpg

According to one tradition attributed to Muhammad, black dogs are evil, or even devils, in animal form.

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)

.

Walther P22 article/Virginia Tech massacre discussion

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)

Okay, I'm going to put a note in the discussion so that anybody who might wish to contest such an action has the opportunity. If nobody has a problem with this in a couple of days, I'll have a shot at archiving it. Here's hoping Wikipedia doesn't blow up... Gamer Junkie 08:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey again. The dispute's been archived, just to let you know. Thanks for the archiving help. Gamer Junkie 09:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Lightsaberfun.gif

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)

The No Original Research Page Needs Admin Help

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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&curid=986140&action=history

Lode Runner just deleted my post and then also made four other posts on the topic. Is there some way he can be stopped or force to go on a break? I believe that he has shown enough (as on his own user page, non the less) that he is here only to wage a "war" on the "rules lawyers" and the rules as they were. User:Larry_Sanger "to show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." That would fall under the definition of a wiki-anarchist. SanchiTachi 01:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Lode_Runner There is a response from Lode Runner on his talk page. SanchiTachi 03:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

On Assuming Good Faith

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 before:"04:05, 6 May 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:No original research (See talk page. semi-major addition, but I believe it is in the spirit of WP:NOR. There were no objections)" That was where he added in the talk page rule changes. As you can see, he put that "war" before he started the whole war.
• This was then followed by his posting on Wiki Talk:

"# 31 Perhaps a "STFU, this isn't the article itself" tag?"

• Then "Given the growing number of sniveling rule-lawyers who use WPs (and especially this WP:) to shout down opposition, I really think that this all needs to be spelled out." Which can all be found on the "Revision as of 04:19, 6 May 2007"

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)

I also went ahead and conceded the debate on language and said they can do whatever they want about editing other people's language and that I will let other people deal with it. It was causing far too many problems. SanchiTachi 15:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the vote of confidence. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Larry Vickers

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)

I also replied on the Delta talk page about the HK416, I think this is an issue that merits good discussion and I await your reply. --Semper Fidelis 13:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

legal intern

Hello. I answered you here Anthere 21:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)