User talk:Swatjester/archive10

Wiki-Break / I'm wiki-stressed

[1].

Copied, slightly modified to remove names (that would appear as personal attacks outside the ArbCom).

I'm sick and tired of the trash spewing, the animosity, this misquotations, and the bad faith being displayed in the Miskin arbitration case. I'm done with it. I'm removing it from my watch list, I'm not going to be checking it again, I want no further contact on my talk page about it from anyone except the clerks notifying me that it has either moved to voting or been closed. Congratulations. You've upset an admin and a longstanding editor to the point of apathy. If that's not disruptiveness, I don't know what is. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As stated above in my status, I am done with that. I find it amazing that as an administrator, that I'm allowed to be subjected to extensive and continued abuse under the guise that "anyone can say anything in an Arbitration case." I'm sick of seeing the following words in this case: "Malicious editing, abusive administrator, bad faith, conspiracy theories, bad faith allegations, false claims, malicious rumors and fallacies, etc". I'm tired of other editors presenting "findings of fact" that contain quotes that I have never once said, and twisting their words to attempt to curry favor with the arbitrators. As Tony Sideaway told me once, "The arbitrators are not stupid, nor are they foolish". This arbitration case is turning into an insult fest with no redeeming value, and the only way to maintain my editorial and administrative integrity (for one), and to keep myself from getting baited into blocking Miskin (for two, even though at this point he arguably has deserved it for gross and disruptive incivility), the only way to keep that integrity is to not sully myself any longer with association. I'll accept the arbitration verdict (as I have to), but I will no longer edit the workshop, and I'm taking a wikibreak at this point to destress myself from the extreme annoyance this has caused. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Rorschach ink blots

And I apparently must remind you that my concerns regarding the display of these images have never been from the motive of "censorship." It's all about copyright, plain and simple. DagnyB 00:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

PS It's interesting that your prior note somehow neglected to mention that you protected the page only after restoring the image that is in dispute. DagnyB 00:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright are being discussed over OTRS right now. I returned the image to the state it was in to facilitate the investigation. You were in the wrong forum for debating copyright. Editwarring is never an acceptable format. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that you kindly bear WP:GF in mind before making accusations of "editwarring" [sic]? It is easy enough to determine, via a review of the page history, that I have engaged in nothing of the sort. I would also respectfully observe that there are various ways to convey information about Wikipedia policy to editors - particularly those among us who are relatively new. Some of these ways are perceived as more constructive, friendly, informative, and welcoming than others. Thank you, and best wishes for a pleasant evening. DagnyB 00:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you were editwarring. There is clearly editwarring going on with that page. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For blocking me SwatJester, I have indeed learned from what has happened and It wont ever happen again. In my time of being blocked, I have read the Strongly suggested article, I have acted very innapropreatley and very ugly and I know my temper is something that needs work. I didnt mean to offend anyone on disturbe anyone on wikipedia or "Vandalize" anything when all I ment to do was to state my argument. Enjoy the rest of your evening.

--Muriness 00:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

you're welcome. And thank you. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Rfa

Just dropping by to say "thank you" for supporting me in my recent my RfA. I passed the vote, and am now an admin. It will take me some getting used to with the new tools, but I thank you again for the trust. Have a good one, and, as always, happy editing! Jmlk17 05:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hello, Swatjester/archive10, and thank you so much for your support in my recent RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I will try very hard to live up to your expectations – please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again! KrakatoaKatie 00:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC) NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or unlicensed drivers such as Paris Hilton.

Question

I have uploaded the correct logo under the "logo" linces and im wondering if you can check things over please? please reply to my tlk page

--Muriness 02:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Question

Were is the space were I explain why it should be there and is it alright if it stays untill I move the article to a main page? (please reply to my tlk page)

--Muriness 03:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 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 15:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Re: Question

Thank you so much, and how do I make my talk bace as nice as yours? (pliz reply to my talk page)

--Muriness 00:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:RE:RE: Question

lol What I meant was how did you create it (pliz reply to my userpage)

--Muriness 19:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:RE:RE:RE: Question

Ahh I see, do you have AIM or AOL?

--Muriness 23:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

RE:RE:RE:RE RE:Question

I Asked because I am not always on here and I figured if I needed help with something you might be availbile

--Muriness 03:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OTRS Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Rorschach1.jpg

Hi. can you, please, tell me wich is the OTRS ticket of the complaint? Tnx. it:user:DracoRoboter

Sorry but I do not understand where I can read that. Thank you. :) (scusami ma non ho capito dove è riportato quel numero, grazie in ogni caso) --DracoRoboter 07:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. :) I'm on OTRS (it) but I can't read legal.. ideed I was thinking about asking for access. I also though that could be a good idea organize a OTRS (virtual) international meeting, there are some issue: OTRS identification, legal threat and so on. Comments are welcome. --DracoRoboter 16:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC) [Grazie mille. :) Sì faccio parte di Otrs, gestisco principalmente le code info-it e permission-it, ma non ho l'accesso a legal anche se, in effetti, stavo riflettendo se chiedere o meno l'accesso alla stessa. Fra l'altro sarebbe bene fare un meeting internazionale di otrs per discutere delle problematiche relative: la richiesta di identificazione e come rispondere le minacce legali in primo luogo. In merito a queste ultime sarebbe molto utile avere una policy ufficiale.] --DracoRoboter 16:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:COFS

Can you please tell COFS (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) to stop posting to my talk page? I wish to avoid future incidents with this user, and do not appreciate the bad faith posts to my talk page. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 03:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

Request for clarification

Smee's edit's have been a major concern for a long time. This should be seriously looked at. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.}

I'm curious to know what your concerns are. To reassure you I'm not here sticking up for anyone, and I don't have any issues or concerns with you myself. Smee like any of us makes errors now and then, but they haven't been anything like the issues to be found at Category:Banned Wikipedia users. What have I missed? Anynobody 06:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually they have. Smee has received a number of complaints against him/her (I think it's her) on the OTRS system. Not all of Smee's edits are problematic, but a great many of them are. Surely I'm not comparing Smee to a banned user, I'm just saying that I don't think we've been taking harsh enough steps to resolve or limit the amount of problem edits being made. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps I could be made aware of this, or some of these complaints could be discussed with me, so that I am not kept in the dark about this? Boston Public, good show, by the way... Smee 15:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

In other words, perhaps you could politely advise me as to how to adjust my behaviour so that you no longer see me as a "concern", but rather a valuable contributor to the project? Smee 15:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

Boston Legal actually, but close. As for the complaints, unfortunately due to the confidentiality concerns inherent to the OTRS system, I cannot share with you the actual complaints themselves, other than making it known that they exist. If you would like independent verification of this, I can have another OTRS admin confirm it. As for how to improve your edits, that's beyond me as I'm not THAT familiar with your editing practices. However, I suggest that in the areas of cults, which seem to be a problem for you, and anything tangentially related, you limit yourself to 1 revert per day, or even 1 per week. That would significantly help you. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Boston Legal, that's what I meant, sorry. I am going to do my best to limit myself to no reverts per articles. And if I feel a desire to revert, I am going to instead move away and/or take a break from those specific article(s). I trust you regarding the veracity of existing OTRS complaints, but I have no way to change my behaviour (other than "reverts") if I do not know anything more than that they exist. Thank you for your time with me, I really appreciate it. Smee 20:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

To be more clear, and to indicate specifically how I intend to change behaviour/take a break - if I knew which articles the "OTRS complaints" were in regards to - I would voluntarily take those articles off of my watchlist, and take an extended break from editing them. But if I don't know, the best I can offer is to stay away from those articles as I have already described, above. Yours, Smee 20:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC).

Those two seem like good steps to me. I'm sorry I can't give you more information, but if you follow those steps I think we'll all be fine. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a catch-22. I understand that you must abide by the rules re: WP:OTRS so please don't think I'm criticizing you when I say that. Smee wants to address any legitimate concerns, but you aren't able to say just what the complaints are. It's essentially like saying to someone; "You're doing it wrong, but I can't tell you more."

I'm not saying we shouldn't have WP:OTRS, because it is very important. There must be some way to let an editor know that OTRS complaints/concerns have been received about them. Where would I go to discuss it, Meta oe somewhere on Wikipedia? Anynobody 03:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunately not for discussion. OTRS is bound by the Wikimedia Privacy Policy. As well, the legal queue is bound by further constraints, and quite possibly further bound by privilege in other situations. That's why the OTRS list is closed discussion, because personally identifying information would be available. In Smee's case, it would be extremely difficult to say anything more than I have already done so, without breaching the privacy policy. It's indeed at the admin's discretion whether to even notify subjects of a complaint that they're being complained about (precisely because it raises questions of "why?" "I can't tell you" "FOMG MALICE!"). Suffice to say that Smee has promised to take a break and that's an extremely promising step. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for your response, above. I will begin taking a whole bunch of other pages off of my watchilst now, and begin to implement what I have stated, above. Thank you so much for your time. Smee 04:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

2 cows

Thanks :p Good idea, I saw it in my IRC logs last night, checked it out this afternoon, and laughed my head off. Then felt very disappointed with myself for finding it that funny ;) Riana ⁂ 04:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

St. Matthew's Churches

The recent edits to St. Matthew's Churches upset me... I know you didn't make them all, but I was careful to make sure every line in that article was directly attributable to the sources cited. Now most of the content has been bushwhacked on demand apparently. I'd appreciate it if the content could be restored. --W.marsh 14:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• And the careful version you wrote got us a legal complaint, so it might be wise to work up from the current version... Guy (Help!) 14:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD log

Hi there. I moved four AfD listings you recently filed to the top of the AfD log list. Please list new entries at the top (I think this changed recently). Cheers! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why'd you remove the elementary schools?

I simply couldn't figure out how to nominate them for deletion--they all need deleted. Please repost. Thanks. KP Botany 21:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks for the laugh--first time I heard anyone use "fucked up" with reference to their own actions on Wikipedia. No, I simply cannot figure out how to do it. I follow the instructions and they don't show up. I can't find the correct page. Something always goes wrong. Again, thanks for the laugh. KP Botany 21:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

AKMask's RfA

Thanks for your message. When closing the RfA, I took a detailed look at the reasons given both for supporting and opposing. While a small number of opposes mention IRC, only #3 and #5 cite it as a major reason for their opposition. I chose not to entirely disregard these opposes, but even if I had done so, this would not have changed my decision that consensus could not be demonstrated to make AKMask an administrator. The other issues you raise - incivility and opposing per the arguments of other users - can be problematic, but are not reasons to disregard a comment. I have given a fuller reasoning at WT:RFA. AKMask is welcome to restand in the future, and provided their contributions do not raise any new concerns, I suspect that a clear consensus to make them an administrator will be reached then. Warofdreams talk 01:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought you'd like to know this

Yeah I reverted this. Might want to have a talk with that user. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 01:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What does "redacting per RPA" mean?

Hi. You recently deleted a comment I made on a talk page. I don't mind as the comment was directed to another user and he got the message, but I was wondering what your note means. Thanks.LCP 23:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Redacting, per WP:RPA. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you also removed KillerChihuahua's antagonistic comment. You are the first person to get involved in the RfC that has noted incivility on both sides. Thanks. I think your version is preferable.LCP 01:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Which comment would that be? I didn't notice a removal of any of my comments. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, it would be terrific if you would also redact KillerChihuahua's inflammatory comment to Ferrylodge, "Get another hobby." While Ferrylodge was at times hot and inappropriate in the RfC, several other editors were blatantly inflammatory, particularly KillerChihuahua and two others with whom she apparently teams up regularly, and no one spoke a word caution or correction. That is what inspired my comment that you (thankfully) removed.LCP 18:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

He can't. Its in an edit summary. Only Ovesight can remove that, and they won't for anything like "get another hobby" - which is a suggestion, not an insult. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that an indefinite block by Deskana, someone who broke a rule of not blocking someone over another dispute when involved in one already (i.e. he was involved in a content dispute and also blocked based on what he considered as 3R, which violates the admin rule), is just a tad excessive, when blocks are preventative not punative, and that person violated IP by moving stuff against someone's will and merged the history without permission of a personal page with a main wiki page? Or do you like admin who abuse their power, support people who are making it obvious that their intent is only to harm others (notice how those people who were so active on the pages trying to help haven't touched the pages one bit) and so on? I think enough rules have been broken by them, and a block was given to the person who actually broke no rule. Funny how that works.

WP:CLIMB ad

Like?

Miranda 10:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Election notice: Your endorsement

Hi! You have endorsed one of the candidates in the current board elections. However, you have not provided a link from your local project (this one) to your user page on Meta, so we have no way of confirming that you are the same person. Please provide a link to Meta from your user page or user talk page to Meta, then reinstate your endorsement, which I struck and indented. If you like to have your user page in a certain way, you can do it in a diff, like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJon_Harald_S%C3%B8by&diff=138817866&oldid=136122013 this], but then you have to provide the link to the diff for us. Thank you for your cooperation! Jon Harald Søby 19:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Jon Harald Søby 21:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Black Wall Street Records

Hi, user Shadyaftrmathgunit keeps trying to add the non-notable members of the record lable to the article. I know you used to revert that, and since you are and administrator, you must be right, so I am trying to do what you used to do. I already told him why I revert his edits and he keeps doing it, can you have a chat with him on his talk page and tell him that it is not allowed, he might listen to an administrator more than he would listen to me. Thank you. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 19:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Foundation account

You should have received the information via email now. --Michael Snow 00:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

NYIIFVF

Hey Swatjester, just curious if you could disclose anything in regards to the complaint on New York International Independent Film and Video Festival. Just wanted to know what can/can't be included in the article based on the OTRS ticket. I don't know if it's sensitive material and you can't disclose it on here or what, but could you please give a bit of clue so people at the article know the limits on this article. I'm not a big fan of the section one way or another, but some users feel strongly it should stay and some users don't which has led to revert wars without discussion. Knowing the basis of the complaint would help alleviate some of this I think. Thanks, Metros 00:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm about to unprotect it, without the unsourced criticism. I did a brief search and found 2 sites that were non-blogs with criticism, both pointing to other sites, both of which no longer had the criticism anymore. Therefore I think it's safe to say that it's unsourced. Just remember that you need reliably source criticism: and be extra careful with it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it's unprotected now. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent Vanadlism on my user page [Ticket#2007061510002946]

I had left my user page on Wikipedia as it was on May 12, 2007. I find out almost a month later following an off-Wikipedia source, thet my user page was vandalized.

I do belive and have CONFIRMATION that the vandals (cyberbullies) known as users Yonathan, in which I belive to be a man named Jonathan from another site called TV News Talk, and Marcus TVNT, who claims to work in that site's legal department and has made a legal threat against me, have vandalized my user page, and I have printed off the evidence in which most of the vandalized page has been since been proven false proving them wrong, as I belive that they are in my trap, and felt I needed to contact them on their user page, pursuant to Wikipedia policy.

So with that in mind, I would appreciate if I get to the bottom of this dispute that will eventually end at Wikipedia, as long as this dispute has been met to my standards.

Sincerely, (Aeverine Frathleen Nieves 08:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

PS: I have since fixed my user page (in which the vandalism was deleted) probably up to Wikipedia standards.

MfD nomination of User:Swatjester/twinkletest2

I've nominated User:Swatjester/twinkletest2, a page you created, for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Swatjester/twinkletest2 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Swatjester/twinkletest2 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Lava Lamp

You blanked lava lamp. I dont care what your reasoning is, because this is grossly detrimental to the aim of the wikipedia project, and would ask you to immediately return to its previous state. Philc 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's been blanked as a matter of course due to there being an OTRS ticket against it. SJ is just doing his job here - Alison ☺ 19:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well then the job hes doing is grossly detrimental to the project, and again I'd ask him to revert his edit, and ask why on earth this could be considered acceptable action. Philc 20:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

With due respect, there are obvious legal/trademark issues with the article. That's why it's got an OTRS ticket. SJ is just being the agent for the Foundation, is all. WP:AGF and all that ... - Alison ☺ 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have blanked it due to a legal complaint regarding the copyright. As is standard with such things, the process is to blank or stub and protect it pending resolution. Your demanding tone is not welcome here, please assume good faith (AGF). The page will come back when the dispute is resolved. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

An interesting addition appeared on the Talk page: [2] It might not be usable or relevant to whatever is going on, but it is at least interesting in some ways. (SEWilco 03:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Would it be possible to explain something about the nature of the dispute, either here or on the article talk page, and when it is likely to be resolved? Is the article claimed to be a copyvio? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't disclose too much more. The summary is above. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Lava lamp

Can you let me know what the problem was? 2007052310014607 seems to be in Legal and I can't see it. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I may not a legal-clerk such as you, I don't think there is any possible way we are violating their trademarks (if that is the issue...). The term "lava lamp" has already been rendered generic if Websters[3] or The Cambridge Dictinary[4] are any guide. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else can you move it out of legal so we can figure out how to proceed here? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns. Please just be patient and we'll resolve it as quickly as possible. As we're in contact with the attorneys in question, I don't think it would be appropriate to move it out of the legal queue at this time. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Good luck. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:MarkThomas

Hi. Could you please look at the latest contributions from Mark Thomas at my RfC and related matters. He appears to have completely ignored your previous "final" warning and continues his attacks on me, now attacking me at User talk:Gold heart because she put some positive comments about me on the RfC. Would you please give Mark an unambiguous warning to leave me alone? He also 1) claims that I can't copy material regarding me from his talkpage - is that true?? and 2) deleted separate comments I made from the RfC talkpage. Frankly, if he is allowed to keep attacking me on all fronts like that I will lose my cool and say something silly. Which is probably the game plan. Regards(Sarah777 21:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Thanks! I'm starting to realise how the guys in the Alamo felt!! (Sarah777 22:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Don't encourage it though. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure won't. This is really going on too long; not sure if you are aware, but I have already offered the "other side" that I was prepared to be "chaperoned" by you in British/Irish political articles - if you judged my comments, edits, whatever to be OTT, uncivil etc. I'd agree to immediately retract. (OK, I know you are probably too busy and I didn't consult you - but hopefully referrals to you would be rare). I've had zero response to this...presumably because that obviously means other editors language gets chaperoned too, de facto. (And badly needed IMHO!) Is there any mechanism to move forward on this, or must this RfC last forever? Regards (Sarah777 22:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Normally I'm happy to do that, but see my status box up top: over the summer I'm just too busy to focus on anything more than whats listed up there, and then occasionally some other administrative stuff. It sucks for me too cause I love article editing. But even my free time on that this summer is dedicated over to Wikiversity. As for the RFC, they usually just close. They're requests for commentary. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

How

Can I find out my IP address?

--Muriness 03:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Log out. Go back into the Wikipedia home page and - presto - it'll be displayed at the top where your username normally goes. - Alison ☺ 03:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Or visit: http://www.whatismyip.com Lsi john 12:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User:One Night In Hackney

While I do not support in any way, shape or form his last comment, and I've asked him to take off for a day or two until his stress level drops, I can see where he's coming from. The admin who declined his unblock is currently was in a discussion elsewhere, and there seems to be a double standard where his viewpoints can be called "terroristic" (Northern Ireland issues) etcetera, and they only get warnings (I'm talking about that whole group, I've seen it about 10 times) but when he calls someone a vandal for removing properly sourced, notable information, he gets blocked. Sure, he violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but there HAS to be a limit to which he can be expected to deal with folks attacking him, and not attacking back. SirFozzie 17:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but another admin declined the unblock request before I got there. I'm not going to go over their heads, not to mention Hackney's response was completely out of proportion to a 24 hour block. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've only just seen this. Please note for the record that the block was not for a single event, but the culmination of several such. He could have been blocked earlier, but in view of his previous good record, I engaged in dialogue requesting a cessation of this behaviour, then issued a detailed final warning. Although he acknowledged the points made, the behaviour persisted and there was no indication it was likely to stop. Please note also that several users "on the other side" have not just been warned, but have also been blocked for their personal attacks - one user three times. There is no "double standard": that allegation is quite unfounded. Tyrenius 20:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Breach of WP:CIVIL at Great Irish Famine

Hi, I wonder if you have time to take a look at the latest edits by User:Domer48 at Great Irish Famine - apart from edit warring, and doing a 3RR there, he also accuses me of "bad faith edits" in his comments, and when I post warnings and requests for apologies correctly to his talk page, he reposts them to the main talk page for the article, something Sarah777 did yesterday and which you have stated was OK but at least appears to be bad manners. This is very incivil - I am not bad faith editing, I am trying to make sense of a whole series of edits under the title "suggestions of genocide" when there is in fact no such suggestion. Can I ask you to take some action if justified? Thanks for your help. MarkThomas 19:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Banner and CC-BY-SA of userpage

First, here's your banner for WP:MILHIST.

Second, since my contributions are CC-BY-SA, I would highly appreciate that you cite me for the purpose of you copying the talk page layout. I have spent, literally, many hours in creating this layout, and would highly appreciate if you credit me. Thanks. Miranda 15:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoops thought that it was int here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Brad Chase?

Just noticed your signature...I'm a big fan of Boston Legal too. When I read about your military service and your budding legal career I couldn't help but make the connection. 67.86.86.217 01:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I hated Brad in season 1. I like him ok in Season 2. I hope he'll be bigger in season 3, which I haven't watched yet, and Season 4 (though with the return of Jerry Espinson that may take up some of his screen time). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Loose Change

What is the status of the complaint. Could you please elaborate and mention it on the Talk:Loose Change (2007 film). Thanks. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the ticket that it's involved in, so I've unprotected. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Rinnnng

Ha! Couldn't help but notice :) - Alison ☺ 01:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Mind you, as categories go .... :/ - Alison ☺ 01:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Lol, well something should commemorate my 3.5 hours in line. Which turned out to be pointless as the Apple Store had enough to last until midnight. Something like 1500 units. We'll see if it lasts (the category that is). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk :) BTW - Image:IPhone_San_Jose.jpg was taken there yesterday by myself near Apple HQ. I've had (bits of) one on my desk for weeks now. - Alison ☺ 03:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Bits of an iPhone? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yep! ;) - pmail me! - Alison ☺ 04:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Lava Lamp

It's day 11 of OTRS limbo for this poor article... just in case you forgot. --W.marsh 02:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I know. I'm out of town until Monday. If nothing happens with the complainant by Monday I will go ahead and reinstate the article and lift protection and all that. If for some reason I'm slow on doing that, pester the shit out of my talk page or just do it yourself? Thanks for being patient with it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see an OTRS ticket #2007052310014607. Search-by-ticket-number turns up nothing. What's the deal? Raul654 04:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's in the legal queue. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! It's Monday. *pester* *pester* *pester* There's a question over at the Science Ref Desk asking about lava lamps, and I was gobsmacked when I went to go look at our article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's undone. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

NYT interview

Hi Dan,

Just some thoughts on what you told the NYT reporter about Wikinews. Did you really suggest that Wikinews is a place for news that slips off WP's radar? Maybe you should take some time getting to now other projects outside enwiki before suggesting something like that to a journalist -no offence. It's obvious to me that with 6.8 million users versus 26.000, WP's radar is a lot bigger. Not to mention the fact that your comment really sounds like you think Wikinews is inferior.

Wikinews is the answer when it comes to writing neutral, user-generated news in the style of a newspaper instead of an encyclopaedia. The project has been hindered in it's growth by enwiki and things like Portal:Current events. We should be working together you know. I've seen few people taking the time getting to know any other place than their own project: I invite you to expand your horizon.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That was not at all what I suggested. I stated that was the way it is right now. Major events get on Wikipedia. Everything else goes on Wikinews. I am quite familiar with the other projects as it is, I am on en.Wikiversity, commons, and meta, and more rarely en.wikisource. It is absolutely the case that as it stands right now, big stories come out on WP, and everything else slips over to wikinews. That's certainly not ideal, but that is entirely the way it is. If you reread the article, the entire point of the article was about Wikipedia's role in covering major current events. I don't at all think Wikinews is inferior. Nor do I have any inclination to edit it, I simply don't have the time to research for it: Wikiversity and Wikipedia are much faster to get a few good edits in, for me.

As for getting to know the other projects, as stated above I think I have pretty well, and this is certainly not my first interview I've done (not even my first interview with the new york times). This was a very favorable story for us. Jon Dee was neutral, very fair, did not gloss over either our pros nor cons, nor did he take quotes out of context like many reporters do, or paraphrase. In fact, he quoted us word for word. I thought it was extremely well done, and in the end, probably beneficial for Wikinews, as well as wikipedia. YMMV. Thank you for your concerns though.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Steven seems to have some concerns about interaction between sister projects, which the NYT article did discuss. But, Swatjester, I came here to say that you did very well in the interview. You're basically half of the article! Your eloquence and rationality make reassuring the fact that you're an admin. And I can only say "um" and "like" and "sorta" :) Gracenotes^T § 00:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You get the hang of it. It helps to take a second to formulate your response in your head, before you make it. Helps that I was a communications/rhetoric major for a couple years (eventually minored in it) And no, ums, likes and sortas don't make you look bad. A terrible example, but even George W Bush uses them. Kerry does. Hell many famous speakers do. You did great, congratulations. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your newfound fame. That was a great article. And it's great to see you're politically involved in such a worthy cause. --MichaelLinnear 04:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OTRS protection message needs link to Wikipedia:OTRS

Please see Wikipedia talk:OTRS#OTRS protection message needs link to this page. —Keenan Pepper 17:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Lava lamp

What is the status on Lava lamp? This is probably a relatively high traffic article, and having it protected is severely disruptive. How much progress has been made to resolving the "Lava Motion Lamp" issue? In this case I actually think we should just ignore Lava world, since they could not possibly win a case over this, and not having the article is worse then the (I presume) threat of legal action. Prodego ^talk 18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it should stay blanked until it is resolved. Not having a single article is certainly better than having legal action that could potentially bankrupt the project, as unlikely as it is anyway. As it turns out, I'm restoring it anyway. But what's more disruptive: a blank article, or a sued project? The answer to that should be obvious.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I agree. It just seems ridiculous the extent that any legal complaint, that could probably be easily dismissed or resolved can cause such an extreme reaction. The project's financial situation requires it at this point, but hopefully at some point these issues will be able to be handled quickly and directly by the foundation, since they are the once at risk, and they are the ones with the capability to dismiss issues. Prodego ^talk 21:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well you are correct, that the financial situation requires it. Once the new Legal Coordinator is settled in, he and I will work to make sure that these sorts of things go quite a bit more quickly in the future, along with similar ones that come into the legal queue. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Advice please

Dose this type of comment look familiar [5]. Regards --Domer48 19:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I commented on AN/I but I have no real desire to be further involved. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

Hi. What's are the details on the block of User:71.112.115.55 ("per DavidShankbone evidence")? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, never mind; talk page explains. Checkuser has found a named editor editing from there and there alone... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sire (?)

>Treat the admins with deference and respect. What's this all about? A community of equals where some people are more equal than others?

>Just don't mess with it: Wikipedia is not THAT important that your information NEEDS to be there Right Now Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because the joy of editing is that, although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. And do not worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. But remember — whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity. DDD DDD 02:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I missed the part where Wikipedia was a community of equals. We certainly don't treat banned or blocked vandals as equals. If we're all equal, none of us have any power, yet why do we have ArbCom, Bureaucrats, Stewards, etc? No, the fact is, the community has vested trust in some people, specifically administrators, and that community trust entitles respect and deference, two things that easily fit into three words: assume good faith.

As for your second request, your clever use of the welcome message towards my sentence specifically targeted about OTRS is a strawman. OTRS articles cannot damage Wikipedia or destroy content. They CAN hurt other people, which is why they should not be messed with. Be bold, but remember that Wikipedia is not that important, and your information does not NEED to be in there Right Now.

As for the sarcastic Sire remark, I'll let that go in good faith.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is, I still believe, *supposed* to be a democratic organisation. That's why anyone can edit. An important principle of democratic socities, de facto or de jure, is egalitarianism. Am I making a failed leap of logic when I expect people to be treated like equals here? Another defining feature about democratic institutions and leadership is that leaders are not the most powerful members of the tribe but rather those who serve the community.

Oh please, I'm far from a powerful member of the tribe. I'm an unpaid intern on an unpaid volunteer project, that takes regularly 8 hours plus of my time per day. Don't tell me that I don't serve. If you took the time to read my userpage you'd know I've dedicated my life to service. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We certainly don't treat banned or blocked vandals as equals. Are you insinuated that I am a banned or blocked vandal because I question what your wiki admin philosophy?

Uh, no? Are you blocked by an admin? Are you a banned vandal? If not then I wasn't referring to you. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.}

Your *thoughts* on your user page, whether you are aware or not, REEK of arrogance. How about showing deference and respect for the millions of users across the various wiki projects who take the time to volunteer here without needing a title. This isn't a junior high school student council election. And we are not résumé building.

And your comments REEK of lunacy and inaccuracy.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As for my *sarcastic Sire remark*, take it in good faith or accept it for the sarcasm that was intended.DDD DDD 04:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because approaching someone with sarcasm is MUCH more likely for you to get your way? WP:CIVIL is that way: I think you should read it while you're busy not coming back to my user page. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Rorschach inkblot test

I wonder if you could unprotect this page, or at least allow registered users to edit it. It has been protected for about a month, and I believe the OTRS issue has been resolved. Thanks. Ward3001 21:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked, and it does not appear to have been resolved yet. I'll drop it down to semi-protect, and if the edit war starts again, we'll reevaluate. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't like edit wars either. If I see one brewing I'll let you know. Ward3001 18:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments at ANI

I have responded to your comments at the page. I would respectfully ask you review them, and if you still believe I am invloved in an edit war provide the diff from the page where I entered the text prior to the alleged (by me) sock becoming involved. Pedro |  Chat  20:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey

How do I make a wikipedia robot?

--Muriness 02:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm not good at tech stuff. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 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 14:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Lava Lamp

FYI, [6]. Prodego ^talk 21:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I knew about it, but had lost the link. Thanks! ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed it looking through Google News, I didn't know if you had seen it. I guess blanking that page was disruptive :). Not so much as interfering with a legal situation would be, but somewhat for sure. Happy editing! Prodego ^talk 04:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. They did a great job of researching on it....."There was no discussion"......except for the page after page of AN/I, User talk:Swatjester, User talk:w.marsh, etc. This is why the Reg has an awful reputation, doubly so involving wikimedia. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfB

Thank you, Swatjester, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions. Most sincere regards, Húsönd 23:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Obrigado, Swatjester, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3). Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões. Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd 23:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Thanks • Obrigado • Gracias • Merci • Danke • Спасибо • Tack • Kiitos Esker • Köszönöm • Takk • Grazie • Hvala • ありがとう • 謝謝 • 谢谢

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maple Lane Elementary School

What happened here? You reverted the addition of the AfD header on the article a minute after adding it...? Was this article ever added to the AfD log?

Just curious--seems an oddity. — Scientizzle 23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I was using a Twinkle plugin that had a serious bug in my browser that malformed the xFD all the time. That was one of the AFD's that malformed...if it was added to the AFD log, it was reverted (I rolled back all of the edits I made with the browser). ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Baby Charlotte/ Charlotte Lucy Cleverley-Bisman

I'd ask Doc Glasgow, but he's been gone for a month; fortunately you're still here. It looks like Charlotte Lucy's parents have a web page dedicated to telling her story and publicizing her case, http://www.babycharlotte.co.nz/ , so it doesn't look like they are worried about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons issues. Would you be OK with undeleting our article, Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman? If you then have other concerns, we could then take it to an Articles for deletion discussion, but it doesn't look that its mere existence would be a blot on Charlotte's life. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Doc went on extended wikibreak. Give me a few days to check this out. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. Hmm? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm real caught up in moving. I can't guarantee I'll have time to check it out. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 09:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. I'll take it to DRV, then, and hopefully others will have the time. Good luck with the move!

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

yeah

i didnt make threats i informed him i he was being disruptive and i never once made a threat.BlueShrek 18:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You were incivil, and biting to the new user. [7][8] and gave him incorrect information about our policies. [9] You both were violating our ownership rules, he was just farther over the line than you are. Anyway, he has been blocked for 24 hours. Please be more civil next time. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for sticking up for me on BlueShrek's page. Had I seriously known I brok the rules by adding on to a page and adding honest facts, that was sarcasm by the way, then I certaily wouldb't have done anything.

Oops, I forgot to block you. Oh well, it's fixed now. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1942

Just a heads up on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Battlefield 1942 mods (5th nomination. Bfelite 23:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dookie

Hi. I recently, about three days ago, re wrote the entire article for Dookie, and obtained a GA the next day. Now I want to make it good enough for a FA status, but I need some help. One of my mates says he has a lot of sources and junk to help, but I need a peer review too. So, I was wondering, may you peer review the album? I requested one already, but nobody seems to want to. Thanks! Xihix 21:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

NYT

A little late (didn't see it until today), but I wanted to say that you came off pretty well in your interview with the NYT. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Kenneth McDuff

THe anonymous user who edited the McDuff article erroneously created a red link in the article, when there wasn't one. Perhaps, the person didn't intentionally mean to do that but they did. And I did ask them to please not do that, which I believe is civil. I think you are just a friend of Squeakbox, and you're here to support him since I'm in a dispute with him. I did not act uncivil to this anonymous IP Fighting for Justice 06:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

when did I accuse you of being a meat puppet? I did no such thing. I was talking about an editor in the Kenneth McDuff article. You accused me of being uncivil to someone when I was not. I have a right to challenge you on this. If you want respect you gotta give some respect. I'm ending this discussion you can do as you please. Fighting for Justice 06:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

" I think you are just a friend of Squeakbox, and you're here to support him since I'm in a dispute with him. ". That is an accusation of meatpuppetry. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, then you have my apologies. Believe it or not, I was not familiar with that term. But what else was I suppose to think? You came on the offensive against me and calling for a block on me, while saying nothing about Squeakbox and his accusations of trolling/stalking rape victims. I don't believe anyone in wikipedia should deserves to be called a stalker of a rape victim. Fighting for Justice

Boomerang cow

WARNING: Out-of-context nonsensical rant ahead. Proceed at own peril.

Boomeranging?! If Wikipedia actually rendered arrowheads (yes, there was meant to be an arrow), I wouldn't be in this situation. Next time, I will draw them on manually so as to avoid embarrassment. (Rant ends here) Huffiness aside, it's quite a good use for quite a good picture. (Especially as it's mine) :-) CarrotMan 08:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

User:Fighting for Justice, whom you blocked, has posted an unblock request. It would probably be good if you commented on the request on his talkpage, for the use of the reviewing admin. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

DPeterson/RalphLender/ANI

Noting your comment on ANI, the full back-story is here Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Attachment_Therapy/Evidence#Basis_of_block if interested. Just figuredit'd reassure you to know that DPeterson's block was in fact discussed with two arbcom clerks in the presence of a large number of sysops beforehand, since DP (a proven POV war sockmaster facing probable long term ban at arbcom) has a distasteful habit of untruthfulness, and not much compunction at arguing by fabrication and smear. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin

This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link. Miskin (talk · contribs) is cautioned to gain a consensus on article talk pages before making further edits if his first edits are reverted. Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users, and to treat all editors violating the three-revert rule fairly. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 13:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Nanoed?

A lil' something for the reflexes ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

OMG VTEC kicked in yo!⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Directions

What part of the Village Pump should I go to for account problems? I think there's something funny happening with it. -WarthogDemon 22:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest Wikipedia:Help Desk, but if not, the technical subsection would work. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! -WarthogDemon 22:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How

How do I change my articles name?

--Muriness 04:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Request discussion about deletion / blocks

Dear Swatjester,

I want some dialog with you regarding your recent messages and deletions of things I've posted.

I don't know how to contact you, apart from this talk page, so here I go:

Regarding 3RR block request:

You said: Please note that reversions of simple vandalism are exempted from the 3RR, and using diffs with multiple intermediate revisions to attempt to hide this fact is disruptive.

I understand the vandalism bit. I did not notice that there was vandalism on the page that caused the revert, but I understand that now. Your other comment about "multiple intermediate revisions" I don't understand, and I'm asking just so that I will understand this rule in future. It was not a deliberate attempt at being "disruptive". Does the 3RR rule only apply to consecutive edits? I thought it was for any Reverts in a 24 hour period.

Re: Walkleys (the incident where journalists attack each other:

I was a bit surprised that it was deleted. Before posting the image, I had checked other Wiki articles to see how they handled copyright images of famous events. I used the Janet Jackson incident as a template, as it is in some ways similar. On the Janet Jackson image, there were similar reasons given as to justify why it could be used in Wikipedia.

Are there no reasons to ever justify the use of a copyright image?

thanks Pigmypossum 00:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

responding on his talk. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You cant be that incompetent

"You have been blocked for 1 week for disruption and making threats to continue that disruption, on the FOX talk page. Wikipedia is not a battleground for your fight against Fox news. If you cannot behave appropriately on the project your editing privileges will be revoked. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)"

I'm sorry but did you read the whole thing? I'm not against fox news in fact in this situation i was for getting rid of something false that was detrimental to their image. if you thought i was making threats you obviously read something other than what I wrote. if you did your job more thoroughly you might have noticed i only became angry because my talk posts were deleted repeatedly by someone who disagreed with me. also if you take another look at the discussion you will find my position vindicated by another user, on the sheer bases of being correct. I think you should reread my posts and apologize. The point I was making (which I am amazed both you and blaxthos missed[blaxthos who erased my talk posts]) was that simply that just because you can cite a source dosent make that source true, unbiased, or respectable. Here is my last post again just so we are clear that i wasnt making threats.

"Now thats just being childish and you know it. First you attempted to censor me by removing my talk posts and when I attempt to make a point you accuse me of terrorist threats! Read the Koran while a beautiful and poetic book is full of dark age morality (hence the whores comment). look up "America" and "burn" on google. While depressing it does make my case, souces could be cited. By ANI what do you mean?Towers84 18:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fox_News_Channel_controversies#dont_remove_my_talk_posts_again.21

please reread the thread. I am sorry for the tone but being repeatedly silenced by blaxthos and then blocked without merit has truly frustrated me. all I wanted was something biased removed from a page. I'm not against fox news, nor am I for them I just wanted wikipedia to be what its supposedly meant to be FAIR, ACCURATE, UNBIASED. if you read all this(and I hope you did) thank you for your time. towers84 72.189.48.223 04:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Making threats to "jihad" things does not get easily written off. Sorry, but it's going to take more than that to believe you, especially since that completely does not jive with what you said. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is so unclear. I said "now I'm off to the spain article to edit that rightfully belongs to the jihad BECAUSE I CAN CITE A SOURCE!". first, jihad translates to struggle. SO I guess you have implied that I've threatened to struggle? second your right I should have had quotation marks to show I was quoting, that these are not things I've thought to say. so you have banned me of your own accord because I have quoted things without quotation marks? or because I threatened to write something on another page using a biased source? It's called hyperbole. perhaps in bad taste. but its a way of making a point the part of the article in dispute blaxthos said had a source I was explaining in ways I thought he and you could understand that not all sources are created equal. Perhaps if I had said "for the mujahideen(literally "strugglers")" it would have been clearer. Now I would be happy to let this drop if you can show me where I threatened to do anything but edit a page using a biased source. for more information you can go to google and type in "Spain belongs to Islam". Once again IF you have actually read all this t hank-you, this was obviously some misunderstanding on your part and I hope I have enlightened you. the misinterpreting of Arabic words and phrases is a huge problem in the English speaking world. The media as a whole, both right and left commonly mistake "jihad" for holy war. perpetuating Ignorance. towers84 72.189.48.223 12:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the meaning of "jihad". We have a rule here. It's called Wikipedia is not a battleground. Wikipedia is not the place for your struggle, your jihad. It's not the place for hyperbole. Encyclopedias do not use hyperbole. They use verifiable reliable sources, and neutral facts. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

my ONLY COMPLAINT was the lack of reliable sources on that section of the article and the glaring bias of the "facts" presented. I only used hyperbole on the talk page, if you could point out the relevant rules that say hyperbole is not to be used on the talk page I will gladly shut up. I don't know how I got on your bad side. why was I banned? I have made it clear that no threat was made. It should be obvious I had no grudge on anyone. shouldn't there be two sides to a battleground? who was I battling. What did I do so wrong to warrant a block? was I nasty? Did i swear? Did I make personal Insults? I'm so frustrated and I'm tired of being bullied.72.189.48.223 18:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Brandt

What are you talking about? What I restored was a template with a link to the concesus that decided what would happen to the article. Isn't that how it's supposed to be? --Thus Spake Anittas 11:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

10:20, 3 August 2007 . . Anittas  (trolling restored.)
09:38, 3 August 2007 . . 86.151.127.32 (remove troling)
06:32, 3 August 2007 . . Anittas (rv, so what if they're defamatory?)
02:15, 3 August 2007 . . 68.91.89.209 (Blanked due to BLP violation. Those AfDs are full of defamatory statements. -- Daniel Brandt)
16:24, 1 August 2007 . . Bryan Derksen (article deletion discussion history)

"So what if they're defamatory" s a completely unacceptable response, as is "trolling restored". ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so are you talking about the edit summary, or the revert, or both? --Thus Spake Anittas 10:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary primarily, as well as the revert. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 06:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:ST47

Thanks for the message. I responded on my talk page, but to summarise here, I got clerks confused with people with actual checkuser access, after a quick scan of the popup message on his userpage. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sam Harris

I'll try and deal with this along with you. Makes sense to have a group of people rather than one dealing with a contentious issue like this.

I already warned DivaDome about the conflict of interest policy. --SunStar Net ^talk 17:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Divadome is already indef blocked. The only thing left is really to await the checkuser, and then undo any new events that arise. The big skirmish is happening on the unblock list about it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. I think they'll probably come back with new sockpuppets from different IPs. As it is, how do I join unblock-en-l??

You've done well to get them all blocked. --SunStar Net ^talk 17:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Unblock-en-l is an admin only list for subscribing. If you're an admin and want to subscribe, simply mail unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org and say "hey, please subscribe me" and link your wikimedia account. Otherwise, blocked users simply send a single email to it, and are replied to by list subscribers via. CC, as far as the blocked user is concerned it's all done through private email and not a list.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User page

Wow, do you really have all of the firearms you list on your user page? I'm wicked jealous. I've got a cheap 20-gague shotgun and a 1903A3 military rifle from my grandfather but that's about it. I was in the market for a 9mm - do you have any suggestions for someone on a limited budget? Thanks and sorry for the non-Wikipedia related interruption... —Wknight94 (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I shoot for the Cavalry Arms team, though I have not done so in some time. They're the ones building my M4, it's actually completed and awaiting shipment, but I can't take delivery on it until I get back down to west palm beach, can't have it in my apartment. But yeah, I collect practical guns. Except shotguns, I don't have any. My dad has a nice rare over/under that he got to shoot skeet/trap, but it's like a really expensive limited edition one. I'm not a big shotgun fan, I feel that most anything they can do, a good carbine or SMG can do better (even civilian SMG variants such as the SL-8 and the civie version of the P-90). Shotguns overpenetrate in home defense situations when passing through wall material, but underpenetrate on suspects.

As for a 9mm, I am a recent glock convert and highly suggest a glock. Depending on what size hand you have, either a Glock 17 or 19. There is also a "slimline" one but I'm not sure if it's available in 9mm. Alternatively, a Sig P228, is a very good choice, I'm extremely fond of mine and only grow moreso over time. Ridiculously easy to take apart and clean, fires accurately with nearly no stoppages, very safe, has a decocker....yeah I think it's a good choice. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking to buy one, I suggest going to a site such as Snipershide.com forums (which I've had good luck from: that's where I got my m1A, M24, and glock 20c from, as well as optics) and finding a user that has something for sale that matches what you want. You nearly always get between 10- 40% off the label price, sometimes on new in box guns, or rarely used. Plus, these guys know how to maintain their weapons so even used ones are in good condition.

I'm jealous of the springfield BTW, I've always wanted to make a replica M1903A3 sniper rifle but don't have THAT much interest to dedicate to it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the tips! I always want to get more into gun collecting but never seem to find the time/money. The story I heard on my 03A3 (and it might be a lie) is that the gov't made a bunch for the British for WWII but they never used them and sent them back. So the gov't sold them to the public wicked cheap (like $5-10 apiece!). My grandfather bought one for himself and one for my uncle. When my father got older, he got my gfather's and then my father gave it to me - so that's a nice heirloom. (I should upload a larger-res picture of mine than the picture we have here). Thanks again for the tips and I'll check out the web sites you mentioned. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Collecting is all about finding the deals. For example, if you can't get 700 bucks to buy an AR-15, how about spending 200-300 on the lower reciever, and then another 200-300 on the upper? You can do it at separate times, and build a supply of interchangeable parts (i.e. one lower, but 3 or 4 uppers) for different situations, and you don't have to save as much each time. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

English Student Unions (and the other countries for that matter)

Hi, I've noticed you've been nominating some pages of this nature lately for deletion, which I consider a valid effort, though it has lead to some resistance. I think it might be more appropriate to try an RFC though, or the VP to get more folks involved. FrozenPurpleCube 18:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated the ones I felt should be deleted, there are quite a few that I think establish a level of notability. This is also why I didn't group them all together: I think individually they have varying lacks of notability ranging from ludicrously extreme to relatively minor, and therefore should be individually deleted on their own merits. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, there may be some which are notable enough on their own, and I'm glad you didn't pick a en-masse nomination(which would have lead to some ugliness if it wasn't speedy closed), but I do think there's enough of a systematic concern that these piece-meal nominations are often missing that. That's why I'm suggesting a discussion that's mean to cover the whole situation, not just a page at a time. FrozenPurpleCube 22:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sarimanok images

Dear Mr. Swatjester:

I have observed the speedy deletion of the Sarimanok images. However, I believe a brief message on my talk page was appropriate because I am in touch with the images contributor. Permission was obtained from him by me as a volunteer-only editor. It was not spam as you thought it was. But wikimediapermissions just have some technicality issue (I have copy of the email with me). So I am contacting the contributor again about the issue. Is this how you operate? Pardon if I had to ask. But courtesy is in order, I believe. Now, once the issue is solved, I will have to re-upload the image and re-do the whole thing. - Dragonbite 06:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of this, I was the one who sent you the email on permissions. As for spam, I don't recall ever saying it was spam. And my deletion tool should have left you an automatic message on your talk page, my apologies if it did not. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh!? Then I take it as the "courtesy message". Pardon me too because the name on the email seemed "different". Well, the "spam" thing was on the "history" of the "Sarimanok" article (if I am not mistaken). What can I do now? Anyway, perhaps just better to wait until the image contributor/copyholder replies (the way I requested him to do so). Good images though... and I was only able to check his reply on fotothing.com recently. He replied on the fotothing.com account instead of my other email account (I could have already "intervened" by then or gave him instructions to prevent the technicality). Well, thanks. We all learn everyday (especially me). I take it as a good Wiki-learning experience... Especially about these images. One day I might concentrate on these to perhaps assist others apply appropriate tags etc. (But definitely not now.) - Dragonbite 07:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw what you did on my edit to Sarimanok. Well, when I get back the images, does that mean the information on the image talk page will be enough. There is no need to use the "clutter" that you call as footnote references? Just let me know for clarification, because those are my sources at the moment? - Dragonbite 07:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The best step is to wait until OTRS gets the permissions received from the copyright holder. Because GFDL is a free license and essentially irrevocable, we need to be very sure that he has expressly agreed to license his images under that. As such, wait till we get the permissions for it, before uploading, and before adding it into the article as well.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. - Dragonbite 17:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

DRV

Doesn't matter. It should have gone to DRV, not been restored, not been reopened. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What happened was that someone decided this was a case for what is called speedy deletion when only three days had elapsed since nomination, only six people had commented, not one of them among those who were knowledgeable about or interested in the subject matter, and there was disagreement about whether to keep the article, and it is routine practice to notify those at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics that the discussion is going on, and that had not been done. A "speedy" in such a case is clearly improper. Michael Hardy 20:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So if it's improper, take it to DRV. DRV is specifically there for improper closures. As it is, it was actually NOT a speedy, but a snowball delete. There's quite a difference. The latter has discussion and clear consensus, the former does not require that. Your continued claims to misrepresent the situation are not helping you; indeed they're only making the case that you do not have the faculty to remain an admin and should be desysopped. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirects pointing to non-existent page

Hi, I saw you removed the redirect of page Virginia A. Boone/Highland Oaks Elementary School because the target page has been deleted. In this case, since there is no interesting history in the article, it is probably better to directly nominate the redirect for speedy deletion (CSD R1), for example using the template {{db-redirnone}}. Otherwise, the leftovers of the redirect make for a confusing article which is harder to find for cleanup. If you don't nominate it for SD, it is probably better to leave the non-existent redirect so that the article can be found through Special:BrokenRedirects. Thanks, Schutz 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I did? I'm pretty sure I did not. I would have just speedied it myself. I vaguely recall AFDing it, you might be confused from that.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why the note?

What is the point of the note you added to the top of that deletion review? I can't imagine why we need it, since surely no one would ever do something like vote on a deletion review without reading the article. Picaroon (t) 05:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

responded on Picaroon's talk page, there was a reason. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You

don't talk with someone else on my talk page. Never. Do you understand?Jade1984 08:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your tone is not welcome. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

(dates removed so it won't autoarchive) The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kyriakos

I'd love to but I'm just not available enough. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.}

Note to self: voting starts Aug. 15.

Candidates:

Carom:voting for. Cla68:no opinion yet. Dreamafter:voting against. Eurocopter tigre:voting against tentatively, further review. Kirill Lokshin: voting for. Kyriakos:voting for. LordAmeth: no opinion. Mohammed Adil: voting against. Politics rule:voting against. Roger Davies:voting for. TomStar81:voting for. TheFEARgod:voting against. Woodym555:voting for. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think two terms are enough. It needs some new faces, while I do write articles instead of wikipolitics. Wandalstouring 14:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A little help on User Talk:THF?

I am trying to remove a comment I left where I commended Ted Frank on his editing that I don't think applies anymore, and he keeps re-adding it to is talk page. Can you please assist in this baby matter, and confirm to Ted that 1. he doesn't rule supreme over his discussion page; and 2. that I have a right to remove a comment I left, that now misrepresents me? Thank you. He was warned about behaving that way, removed the warning, left the comment. --David Shankbone 00:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)