User talk:Swatjester/archive4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Warning I ask that you please post talk comments at the TOP of the In Box, rather than at the bottom of the page.



Click here to leave a message for Swatjester/archive4.


Warning STOP! Hammertime!


Please post comments under the In Box heading. Remember, sign with 4 tildes (~~~~) to show name, time and date. Only 3 tildes leaves off the date, and 5 tildes shows only the date.

Archives: User talk:Swatjester/archive1, User talk:Swatjester/archive2, User talk:Swatjester/archive3.

Inbox

Pleasure :)

- Glen TC (Stollery) 00:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Holler per above. :) I think I'll stick this RFA through, as I've already made a list of things to do to improve next time. I'm humbled by the sheer number of people who turned out to vote for such a n00b as me, though. Thanks for voting, and maybe one day we'll both be successful admins. Here's to the future, _-M o P-_ 01:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, it indeed was a learning experience no? Tell you what: The day you get promoted, I'll mail you a 6 pack of beer.
Fire! 01:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Signing

I'd just like to tap into your vast wisdom for a moment. On [1], you added the unsigned thingy to my comment. Is it necessary to sign outside views like that, since they are under the heading "Outside view by David.Mestel"? Just wondering, David.Mestel 17:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and since I'm on this page for another reason, I'll be free to add my input - yes, sign your comment. That shows your sig and datestamp, which may be needed/useful. Its like having a document titled "Last will and testament of David Mestel" with no signature or date. You see? Only in this case, of course, far less is usually at stake (although depending upon the size of your estate... ) KillerChihuahua?!? 18:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I'm not sure I'd take it that far. But yes, it's important to sign.
Fire! 00:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Its called humor... the comparision, that is. Intentionally overblown. However, the point is valid. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
heh. Sorry puppy, I'm pretty drunk at the moment. Intelligent humor flies way over my head.
Fire! 00:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
How much do you think we'd have to bribe the legislators to get them to make a specific offence of "Editing WP while drunk" or even "Editing WP without due care and attention"?

Requests for Adminship

It is my regretful task to inform you that your recent request for adminship failed to achieve consensus to promote, and has been closed. Please do not be discouraged; a number of users have had their first RfA end without consensus, but have been promoted overwhelmingly in a later request. Please continue to make outstanding contributions to Wikipedia, and consider requesting adminship again in the future. You may find Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship helpful in deciding when to consider running again. If I can be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to ask. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 16:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlucky

Unfortunate that you did not get to become an admin, I certainly did not foresee such a mountain of opposition. I am sure you can clear up the diffs and next time, should you be nominated by anyone, myself included, I will support you again. --Knucmo2 16:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went into this with the exact opposite expectation (knowing ahead of time that the whole subpages issue was bound to come up). Swat, you must have an excellent reputation from your interactions on IRC and AIV. You did quite well considering what people dug up. If you keep a clean record, you will do much better next time, I think people can accept that you didn't fully understand policy and practice on some of these things, and they will be ancient history next time (which should be a minimum of two months from now). Good job :-) NoSeptember talk 20:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck!

Just added my $0.02 to your RfA FWIW. Good luck mate! - Glen TC (Stollery) 05:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

request

Please do not delete messages by this thewolfstar, unless on your own talk page. thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 15:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


NEED HELP


User 68.161.222.151 User Goddessy

Same person, I am new to this part of it all, but they are clearly the same person making comments one right after another and doing very bad slip ups.

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=68.161.222.151

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=GODDESSY


All comments within seconds of each other and you'll notice that quite often, User 68.161.222.151 signs her comments with GODDESSY

I don't know if this is just user 68.161.222.151 accidentaly forgetting to sign in, but it is starting to look like it is just to circumvent the 3RR rule.

Both 68.161.222.151 and GODDESSY had been banned from Wikki as a troll, yet reinstated by a different moderator. I believe ALOT of the "moderator and admin fighting" are due to personal feelings of GODDESSY ( who is in reality Stephanie Adams )

Let's not forget the Wikipedia rules.

She left a message on Jim Wale's Talk Page

Seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=GODDESSY


This person wants you to believe that they have spoken to Jim Wales personally on the telephone, and that he has commented the above inquiry that she left on his Talk Page, yet no signature from Jim Wales is present, therefore looking at the history on Jim Wale's Talk Page it is very easy to see that this person made the comments by themselves to make it LOOK like Jim Wales had commented on her Inquiry



JuliannaRoseMauriello 16:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks and More from GODDESSY Please read this, you told me once to ASK for help and so I am, don't let me down please.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephanie_Adams

Also see her sockpuppet's talk page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GODDESSY



I left a comment under the Let's Clarify Something here title


She then came in and edited it and used all caps to show what she was editing.

This person really, I mean, SHE might be notable, but her company is NOT.


She's already been blocked several times and banned once and the ban was lifted I would believe only because of personal feelings towards her.

Keep reading all the comments down the page.

Wikkipedia is about what is verifiable and not what the person the articles is about WANTS it to say.

JuliannaRoseMauriello 17:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What does any of this have anything to do with me? I don't recall ever having told you anything?

Fire! 21:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Organized Talk

my talk page

Please do not delete thewolfstar's comments from my talk page. I am trying to talk maggie through a difficult time. Merecat 05:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed and censored thewolfstar's personal attacks, per

Fire! 05:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  1. Wikipedia is not censored.
  2. Many people prefer personal attacks be left intact, as the only person who is most likely to be harmed by them is the one who posted, not the recipient. I am one who prefers any and all personal attacks against me be left alone, unless struck by the original poster.
  3. A talk page is generally managed by the editor whose talk page it is. Respect their preferences.
  4. and for the record, if you see vandalism to my user page, revert - if you see personal attacks against me anywhere, please leave them as posted. Thanks!

KillerChihuahua?!? 15:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do it again

Please stop spamming my page and definitely don't ever delete a comment I leave to another editor again. Do it again and you'll be reported. thewolfstar 04:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire! 05:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

RFA

Thanks so much for supporting, and I also thank you for that awesome support note. Cheers! :D _-M o P-_ 23:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I think I'm going to withdraw; I'll leave it up for about 1 more day, but if the article count is this big of an issue, I'll give a good amount of time to build up my number of contributions. Thanks for supporting again, though. _-M o P-_ 04:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I'd say stick it through: You'll know how it's going for next time. But to each their own. Good luck either way.
Fire! 04:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear Swatjester, I appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of movement

My dear jester, the only thing that stopped me from adding more conceptual information to the article was that the main database from which I can find scholarly articles is down and what passes for the university's "library" can give me little. I added some history which I think is relevant, though it might be a little too off-topic given that it wasn't a real right then. Where do you plan on taking this article? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I don't have much to say on the public policy ramifications of Freedom of movement, nor do I have anything to say regarding it as a universal human right. The best I can do to contribute, is to try and continue comprehensively listing various countries that have laws regarding freedom of movement, as I've done with Syria, Burma, and the EU. I may be thinking at this from an odd angle, but it seems to me like there's a couple of reasons people want to go to this article: they're interested in freedom of movement as a human right issue, as a public policy issue, interested in the history of freedom of movement (i.e. magna carta, etc.), or they want to know what the laws are for XXX country. I feel most able to contribute to the last of those reasons. Do you think I'm taking the article in a wrong place? Perhaps I'm not viewing this correctly.

Fire! 18:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't think it's in the wrong place; my only thoughts are that if we list the situation in every country the table of contents will be massive and intimidating. My hopes were mainly to write reasons for having freedom of movement- the ideological basis for it. I'm sure the refugee situation after World War II had its impact. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a main/sub format as it grows then? As you add more reasons for having freedom of movement, that could grow into a subpage
Fire! 18:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Edit Count

Hi Swatjester,

I'm giving you your edit count, as I thought it might help you in your RfA. I used Flcelloguy's Tool (the others are out of whack), so the information is correct as of 08:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

And now (drum roll, please), your stats: 

Statistics for: Swatjester
(Permissions: N/A)
- Total: 5703 -
Main: 1882
Talk: 611
User: 280
User talk: 1562
Wikipedia: 1253
Wikipedia talk: 58
Image: 27
Image talk: 5
Template: 8
Template talk: 2
Help: 1
Help talk: 1
Category: 1
Category talk: 7
Portal: 4
Portal talk: 1
-------------------
Total edits: 5703
Minor edits: 1145
Edits with edit summary: 5654
Edits with manual edit summary: 4148
Percent minor edits: 20.07%  *
Percent edit summary use: 99.14%  *
Percent manual edit summary use: 72.73%  *
-------------------
* - percentages are rounded down to the nearest hundredth.
-------------------

Whoops, almost overloaded the database (you have too many edits!). --Primate#101 08:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much Appreciated.
Fire! 13:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Hey there

No problem, man. If there's one thing I can't stand on a wiki, it's a persistent vandal. (I gather from your userboxes that you feel much the same way). I'm actually a sysop on a smaller wiki, so I've had a fair bit of experience blocking vandals in addition to rving them. Anyway, thanks for the note.

Heimstern Läufer 06:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC) (Crap, I forgot to sing this thing when I posted it!)[reply
]

User page

Please tell me you're not going to go that Loud Green. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm planning on changing it to blue, it's more my color. Either that, or Black and Gold (...The Army Colors/Are black and gold/...) But the layout is much cleaner and nicer than my current one.
Fire! 23:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
It's all been updated into blue instead. Much nicer and softer looking.
Fire! 02:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Personal Attacks?

Thanks for the heads up on personal attacks, but did I violate that anywhere? -EjectGoose

Fire! 16:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

My RfA

You said that you posted some more questions and vote, but I can't really see... --

HolyRomanEmperor 10:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Err...Ctrl+F5? It shows up for me...

Fire! 16:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, that was a horrible thing to do. I intend never to allow him to manipulate my account in that manner. -sigh- We learn through our errors - when I violated the 3RR rule and (factually) reported myself to an administrator to receive the proper penalty, I learned a lot about Wikipedia policy - a lot more than I knew before... --

HolyRomanEmperor 17:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Indeed we do. To butcher the phrase: To err is human. To learn is divine.

Fire! 17:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

List below started by KillerChihuahua?!? 23:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. To err is human. To really foul up requires the root password.
  2. To err is human. To blame it on the Government is even more so.
  3. To err is human. To forgive is unusual.
  4. To err is human. To blame it on someone else shows management potential.
  5. To err is human. To moo bovine.
  6. To err is human. To forgive is simply not our policy.
  7. To err is human. To hide the body shows friendship.
  8. To err is human. Err to, dyslexic.
  9. To err is human. To err in public is humiliating.
  10. To err is human. To err twice, is politics.
  11. To err is human. To lie about it is politics.
  12. To err is human, but with today's ordnance the allowable margin is larger.
  13. To err is human. To demand capital punishment over it is Millian.
  14. To err is human - but it feels divine. (Mae West)
  15. To err is human - but Mae West feels divine! -me ;)

[Heckler & Koch G3 ]

Hi there, with regards to the above page, I was just wondering why you reverted the talk to the previous edit and blanked out my comments? Thankie :) Stele 08:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, because you accidentally blanked out a half dozen of other peoples comments? I actually missed in the diff that you left your own comments in the process. Please be a little more careful to not delete other people's comments when you edit.

Fire! 18:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Is that so? Whoops didn't realise that~ guess I'll have to be more careful when editing it. Thanks!
Stele 23:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RevolutiondeMai

With equal due respect, on checking this new user's contribs it had only 18 edits, 12 of which were additions of nonsense / nn vanity content to the high school page which you reverted. This caused him to go on a childish vandalism spree on your user page and sub pages which had been reverted, and for which he had been warned. There had been no further vandalism for an hour when I checked and I disagree that this can be classified as a vandalism only account. The entry on

WP:AIV referred only to RevolutiondeMai, no mention of other users or IP's that you claim were personally attacking you. Blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive, and on the evidence available would have achieved nothing. I will look into the other personal attacks you mention. Regards. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello Swatjester, I have reviewed your talk page history as you requested, and the only dubious edit I can see after the earlier spats is this one by 131.194.230.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Not something I would characterise as out of control, just the everyday nonsense we all get for keeping things in order. I have left a strong warning on RevolutionDeMai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) talk page after his latest edit to your to do page. Any more nonsense like that will incur a lengthy block. Let me know of any more problems. Regards. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated.
Fire! 13:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

MHS

I would like to know what makes you an authority on anything to do with the high school that i went to. Wiki-pedia is for the masses, it is for those people who want to search the internet to find things out. Personally, putting information up about staff and experiences you have at the respective institution is condusive to the environment of wiki-pedia. There are mutliple sections of that website, which you in turn deleted, that were appreciated by more then just a few alumni of the high school, which you have no contact with what-so-ever. It even lists on your website that you are an expert in combat and related stuff. So why do you go around deleating people's posts. If the information on the website was in fact wrong, it would have been edited by someone who visited the webpage, and has some knowledge on the subject, which i repeat, you do not have. This is not your personal website, and you should not treat it as such. You threatening to put a ban on me is rediculous, when you use your own personally stated bias to edit webpages you dont agree with. You have no right to insult people you dont know. You being upgraded to admin is laughable if you keep it up this way. but what do i know, you hate anons.

Your additions to the article consisted of personal attacks, vanity information, nonsense, unverifiable sources, not a single reference, and did not meet any of the acceptable guidelines for what is allowed for inclusion in wikipedia.
Fire! 07:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Vandalizing my user page, and making personal attacks on the article talk page, are not the best way to get you, and your friends' point across.
Fire! 07:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Nor is vandalizing my user subpages.
Fire! 07:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
More importantly, these anon editors forget another important rule: you have no right to insult people you DO know. I came by to thank you for your clean-up to the
\\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\•• 14:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Iceland

Hvers vegna hafðir þú fáninn i undirskriftin þin? --BluePlatypus 00:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't speak Icelandic.

Fire! 00:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

IRC log repost

I have speedied the page that you posted containing logs of a private conversation on IRC, reposted without permission. Do not do this again; if I find that you do so, I will ban you for life from the Wikimedia IRC channels.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC) (Wikimedia Group Contact)[reply]

A Question About Your RfA

I've just posted a question for you (Question #5) on your RfA regarding your interactions with anonymous editors, and I would appreciate a response. Thanks.

AmiDaniel (Talk) 22:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you very much. I was on the fence with this one because of your interactions with anons, and I now think I'm going to stick with my vote to support. I do think it would be a good idea, however, to remove your anti-anon userbox from your talk page, as I feel that could scare away a lot of anons from talking to you. Sorry things are going so well on your RfA, but, for what it's worth, I still think you'd make a good admin.
AmiDaniel (Talk) 03:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Why do you hate anons?

Why do you hate anons, like myself? When I attempted to contribute to the encyclopedia you bit me. Hard. 129.59.135.52 21:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hate anons. If you're referring to the warning I gave you, it was for blanking other people's talk page comments.

Fire! 00:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

AIV

Thanks for removing my duplicate entry, I'll pay better attention in future. --W(t) 08:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NP, and for the record, he just got blocked 24hrs.
Fire! 08:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Yup, I saw. Yay. Also, sorry for not reading your talk page instructions. I'll go to bed now :-) --W(t) 08:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, again.
Fire! 08:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Enclave and {E|e}xclave

Thanks for correcting my typo! —Tamfang 05:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook

First off, I would absolutely support you on Tawker's RfA.

Second, I finally go the monobook.css to work. I was missing about 8 tabs without it cooperating. I am no longer your fork, I am in fact ripping you off. Teke 04:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHAHAHA you're more then welcome to rip me off anytime! My monobook is in fact a modified ripoff of Book of Jude's, which traces waaaay back beyond time and space, but welcome to the club! Install Monogooey too, at some point in time I'll be updating it through that.

Fire! 04:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh, and if you ever have any questions about the naming scheme for the various modified talk messages, feel free to ask.
Fire! 04:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Sure will. And by the way, there are broken links if you try to use it as-is with IE. I use firefox, but VandalProof runs off IE so I've been working on making sure it all works there. This is an example of a specification that IE needed. No big deal, just to let you know. Teke 19:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Tawker would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Tawker to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Swatjester/archive4. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

One good reason?

Swat, I understand your point, and maybe because I've been called an atheist one too many times I might be a bit touchy (of course, since I edit articles where such a charge is likely to be made, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised or upset). In any case, if you can promise that you'll be a touch more careful with your wording, and avoid generalizations as much as possible (it ain't always easy), I'll happily change my vote, because everything else I've seen has been positive. Take care. •Jim62sch• 01:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I would vote support, but your sig has a violation of

WP:SIG, namely the presence of an image. If you remove that from your sig, I would be more than happy to support. JoshuaZ 13:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC) ps. I'm also a bit curious as to why you are opposed to recycling(not to worry, political beliefs will not alter whether or not I vote for you)? JoshuaZ 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Er, I must have missed the section about recycling. Anyway, my opposition to it isn't VERY great, it's rather targeted: I believe that while certain materials benefit from recycling (aluminum products for instance), the economic costs of recycling are much greater than are advertised to the public. We're trained from birth to think that if we don't recycle our paper, we'll run out of trees. But deforestation doesn't come from paper farmers, who don't need to use the oldest and largest trees, and generally run their own tree farms: they plant their own paper. Ah, and I absolutely despise writing on those 15% or 20% post-consumer recycled paper......ugh. I can FEEL a difference. 10% or less please! Like I said it's not a big concern of mine.

Fire! 02:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


Res Ipsa Loquitur

See here:

τ ç ë 18:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

No worries, mate. -
talk/contribs/email 20:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

GNAA

No problem. I've posted an incident report about all of this, this user has been trolling on over a half dozen pages with a dozen different socks and it's just gotten totally out of hand . . . and as they're all throw away accounts i don't really know what to do about it. --Heah? 06:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you have put this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Meunier on copy right violation , and I have left you several messages in its discussion , which indicate that I have permission to put these info , may you please answer me?! Solitary Copt 00:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't watching the page, sorry. I will look at it now. Ok, so you claim to have permission from the copyright owner. How can you show this permission? Wikipedia licenses it's contributions under the GFDL: which could significantly alter the copyright owner's claims if he released the right to publish it on wikipedia. You're more than welcome to reinstate the article if you can show HOW you have permission, OR if you can simply rewrite the article without using the copywritten material. Regards,

Fire! 02:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

and HOW would I show that I have permission?!!, can you please tell me about the proper way to show this permission?!! Solitary Copt 02:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure. How can YOU show it? Do you have an email from the copyright holder, or possibly a point of contact phone number? What about having him put up something on his website?

Fire! 02:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

ok I have this email with a phone number to contact , but how to make sure that the phone number would be private and just the adminstrators of wikipedia would be able to see it?!, and where to put these information?! Solitary Copt 06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you'd have to privately email an administrator using the built-in email feature. Note: before you get the wrong idea, I'm not an administrator, so if you want it to be private to administrators do NOT mail it to me. Your best bet is to ask here for an admin willing to help you. Or, you could pick one from the list.

Fire!
06:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Whoa , these things needs years to read , can't you just suggest someone for me? but thanx anyway for your help Solitary Copt 06:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. That second link is a list of all the administrators on wikipedia. You could just pick any one of them, and email them.

Fire! 06:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Not to butt in, but . . .
Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission has all the info on how to deal with this- you have to file the info with the wikimedia PR department, not just any admin. left a note on Solitary Copt's talk explaining all this, but i figured you might be interested too, swatjester. cheers --Heah? 23:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Forest moon of Endor

Why did you rollback my edit? That section completely fails

WP:V and others have expressed concerns over it on the current afd as well. Kotepho 04:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

It was cited, sourced information. Whether or not it's canonical or not isn't the venue of wikipedia. Who are the "others"? Because the overwhelming consensus on the AfD is to keep.

Fire! 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

You are correct, canon does not matter. However, those sources are not reliable sources imho. You will note that I also 'voted' to keep the article. The others would be BGC, Develle, etc. Plus the people that expressed concerns over it when it was a standalone article. Kotepho 04:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When what was a standalone article?

Fire! 04:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

When that section was a standalone article,
VFD. Sorry about putting this section at the bottom, hitting the end key is quite a habit. Kotepho 04:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
No biggie. Still, some subjects couldn't have their own article, but are perfectly acceptable as part of a longer article. Incidentally this usually happens with non-canonical sci-fi stuff, and pokemon.
Fire! 05:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
While that is true, it does not mean I like it in this case and people were 'voting' delete not merge. I'm easy going and apathetic though so I'm not going to edit war over it or anything. Ciao. Kotepho 05:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care either. If you really want it out, remove it. I'm going to bed though, nice talking with you.
Fire! 05:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

More on Iranian music

Swat, I wonder if you would take a look at

WP:NOT to a particular user, I am now being accused of harassment, and he has edited his talk and my user space to remove the debates we've been having. Maybe I'm getting too involved in all this... However, this is more listcruft. There is also a serious fair use question over the use of the Queen album cover in the article. Nice one, Deizio 14:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Erm, I can't seem to find this harassment accusation. For that matter, the history doesn't seem to show you editing the article either? What's wrong with just removing the list of links?
Fire! 20:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The harassment thing was the last comment in this [2] debate, I'd better not post the actual text here because the ed in question gets very particular when his comments are re-posted elsewhere, even in the userspace of the editor he made the comments to... I just wanted to get your opinion about the cruft factor of the list before I deleted it, I've since found a hopefully more reasonable editor at
Iranian rock and alternative music who I hope will be amenable to actually creating articles about Iranian bands, rather than ranting about "Western POV" and ignoring policy and guidelines. The list stinks but while there is decent dialogue I'm willing to overlook it for a while in the spirit of progress. Nice, gl with the pretty-damn-well-assured mop duties. Deizio 01:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Iranian metal

OK, I'm baffled. You're an experienced user with no previous involvement in this topic or the project where it is being discussed, why have you reverted my edit and subsequent revert to

WP:NOT, especially the guidelines on linking externally. Deizio 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, for one thing, I don't see any reason for it to be deleted. It's hardly listcruft compared to some of the things that show up on AFD....Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for removing say, redlinked bands. But in this case, I don't see where that list qualifies as listcruft.

As for your comment on linking externally, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Was one of the bands listed linked externally? If so, that should be fixed.

Fire! 01:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Gah. Dude, I apologize. When I first looked at the article (yes, came to it from RC patrol), I missed that they were external links, because of the internal links following them to the genre of music. Maybe I'm dyslexic, who knows, but that little boxed arrow just didn't catch my eye.. I'm self reverting back to your version, and my apologies once again.
Fire! 03:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi, Swatjester/archive4, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User VandalProof}} (which will add this user box) or [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof]] to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on

VandalProof's talk page
. Welcome to our team!

Bepenfriends

Funny, just noticed you and I added our warnings at the exact minute - must have been near identical moments as I didn't get an edit warning (but seems yours was first as mine's on top) - should it be AfD and speedy? I'll leave it your call as you must've beaten me to the punch! Great work as per :) - Glen TC (Stollery) 09:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it should be both AfD and speedy, so once the speedy goes through, the deleting admin will know to close the AfD.
Fire! 09:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Palestine

Indeed, that was an error, I was looking at an old diff I had opened up earlier and deleting material of a purely propagandistic nature, which other people had since worked on. I've fixed it now. Palmiro | Talk 22:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, with regard to the somewhat peremptory tone of your message on my talk page, may I remind you of the policy that one should
assume good faith; furthermore, to be honest, a pleasant tone is more likely to persuade people and make friends than an officious one. Palmiro | Talk 23:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I did assume good faith. Everything I stated was true.
Fire! 23:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, in that case, you should definitely reconsider the tone of your messages, because it certainly didn't seem to me that you were assuming good faith. Palmiro | Talk 23:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but no thanks. I simply stated a point. What you view as peremptory, I view as concise. Perhaps you should assume good faith as well, that I was doing the same.
Fire! 05:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, perhaps I was a little too touchy. No hard feelings on my part at this stage, anyway. Palmiro | Talk 10:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Puppets

his comment on my talk page is a personal attack, not a warning. therefore it can be deleted. there was no cause for him to post a derogative comment about after an otherwise pleasant exchange between myself & you. Drmagic 21:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of personal attacks. Furthermore, you HAVE deleted warnings, so the warning would still apply anyway.
Fire! 21:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


thanks for the message. however i am not new to Wikipedia. i have been a member since August 25, 2004. Drmagic 20:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page vandalism

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion. Drmagic 21:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC) From WP:TALK "Furthermore WP:VAND states: Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." You are quoting the wrong section: note it says "GENERALLY" permitted, this is the exception.

Fire! 21:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


Its just that the user has had some troubles in the past. _-M o P-_ 20:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC) [reply]
I've noticed. I'm debating whether to revert back to the older version and leave a "don't blank your warnings" warning, but I also don't really care much.
Fire! 20:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


Hey guy, I didnt delete it, I moved it to where it belongs. All you have to do is scroll down to see it.Dcmcgov 21:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC) No, you blanked large portions of other peoples comments. Including mine. You did not reinsert ALL of them. Moving other people's talk page comments is allowed, but deleting them is not.

Fire! 21:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Hello Swatjester. Could you take a look at

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Small penis humiliation (second nomination) please. Your AFD nom of this article was actually its second, but it was inserted at the bottom of the page of the first [3]. I've fixed that, but wanted to find out the cause. I presume, both from the unlikelihood of your doing the above manually and from your monobook.js, that you utilized some kind of automated script to nominate the article for AFD. Do you think you could have a chat with the programmer of whichever script was responsible? Kind regards —Encephalon 15:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=65.19.27.142

Is a troll.172.152.132.91 08:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And?
Fire! 08:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


He should be blocked from the Opie_and_Anthony article permantly. If you think I am lying, check his history before he realized how to be a sublte troll.172.152.132.91 08:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does not excuse you from deleting valid comments from a talk page.
Fire! 08:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

They are not valid.172.152.132.91 08:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them were.

Fire! 08:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

"his page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. Although it may be advisable to follow it, it is not policy."

I doubt the sincerity of his comments. His previous edits indicate a deep dislike for Opie and Anthony. He knows that he will be blocked if he is caught openly vandalizing, so he is now switched to being a parasite.172.152.132.91 08:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a content dispute. I don't generally get involved in content disputes.

Fire! 08:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

If you choose not to Welcome user's first before warning them then that is up to you. Perhaps its only my opinion, but I believe it is contrary to the spirit of WP:BITE when anyone warns a newly registered user who has never even been welcomed on his talk page. "Welcoming" someone with warnings could possibly be argued as uncivil and often causes the "greeted" to dislike the ones "welcoming" them. My goal is to reduce the uncivility in Wikipedia, that's all. And I believe that if you would consider my suggestion, we would have a lot less uncivility and vandalism in the long run. Keep up the good work, I think you're doing a great job at everything else you do at Wikipedia. --Amicable 07:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from. I just disagree with it. Thanks for the comment.
Fire! 07:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


Re: Links to Wikipedia Pages

Hey, sorry for asking, but what pages do you watch? I was going through the kungfu pages and added some links but you since reverted to the previous versions and asked me to refrain from adding personal/commercial websites. The pages I saw did have external links to kungfu schools, and mine was no different. My page also contains useful information about chinese martial arts as well. Would you please reconsider? Thanks :) (Jjjchang 05:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

If you see other versions with personal/commercial websites, feel free to remove them from there. Wikipedia is not a tool for advertisement.

Fire! 05:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

It's alright, I'll leave as is. I'm a newbie at this Wiki stuff anyway! However, I did find those links useful. There is some merit in having those external links, as those pages contain valuable information on the history of those styles of martial arts (ie. lineage, historical pictures/video, events etc.). It would be simply too time-consuming to transcribe what they already have on their website into the Wikipedia. Afterall, this is all about connecting information together on a voluntary basis. But I do agree that we do have to exercise judgement when posting an external link. I believe the links that should be banned are those that have nothing to do with the topic, and is obviously added for commercial purposes. Any thoughts? (JJJ 05:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

RFC regarding editing dispute at
Rationales to impeach George W. Bush

Your comments are invited at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat.

Merecat 20:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Herostratus

Now how'd you do that? Seriously. You have a bot or something? Anyway, Thanks! Very much. (I did put it back because I, pervesely, collect 'em swap 'em trade 'em lol. But truly appreciate the protective sentiment!) Herostratus 06:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I have a program that monitors all edits, and flags edits: to specially watched pages, by users less than 30 min. old, users who have been banned before, users who have had edits reverted by an admin within the past 30 min., users added to a customized "blacklist", etc. It provides diffs, and other information, and I just click straight to the diff, rollback if necessary, then go directly to the talk page, and I have a monobook mod that allows me to leave automatic user talk warnings. So, within 30 seconds of seeing a questionable edit, I can revert it, warn the user, and clean up the damage, and move on.

Fire! 06:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Freedom of movement

Hola, SJ. I'm aiming to get Freedom of movement (a fascinating and important topic) up to featured article status by summer. Anything you can add - even if just a sentence or an inkling of information - would be appreciated. Cheers! (P.S. - got you message re: Gator1 - I don't have his email, just the 'pedia email function) BD2412 T 00:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best!
Fire! 02:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
:-D BD2412 T 02:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check your talk page history: I left an article summarizing the paragraph I added to Freedom of movement.

Fire! 02:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Saw it while it was still on the page! Tssk, tssk... ;-) BD2412 T 02:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psssh. He sees all, he knows all.

Fire! 02:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Monicasdude

Your link to my evidence is off. Either the talk page, or my contribution to the original presentation? T K E 05:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Er what? Only evidence of yours I linked was your ArbCom statement. I would have linked to the original WP:RFAR post, but since it's been moved to a new page, I've linked to your section of that page.

Fire! 07:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

TKE summed this up wellgoes to Monicadude's talk page. I'm checking that that is where you meant it to. T K E 17:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops.
Fire! 20:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

God Mode Lite

Could you please enlighten me on God Mode Lite?

As you mention it on your user page, and it sounds useful

If you could let me know where to obtain a copy


You're one person that i see around a lot, and on other forums and such. The internet sure does make it a small place. (don't ask me where, i can't remember atm(


Cheers

Reedy Boy 16:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Interesting. God Mode Lite is a tool that basically gives a non-admin user the rollback tool of an admin. It works differently than popups. With popups you choose a specific version and revert to that old version. With Rollback, it first checks the edit history of a page. If you're rolling back a specific version, and an edit conflict happens because another user edited first, it will cancel the rollback (so it has edit conflict protection). If god mode lite determines that it can in fact rollback, it determines how many edits the user has made to that page, and reverts to the last version of the page NOT edited by that user. For instance, if you vandalize my talk page 4 times in a row right now, and I god-mode-lite it back, God Mode Lite would see it like this: "Hmm, ok edit history goes Swatjester, reedy boy, reedy boy, reedy boy, reedy boy (rollback current version). Clicking roll back would revert to the last version NOT by reedy boy." This is very useful if a vandal is making multiple bad-faith edits or vandalisms to a page. It is, however, less precise than popups. Lets say this time you I make a page. You vandalize it, someone else vandalizes, you vandalize again. If I god-mode lite it, it would only revert your latest edit back to the other user, who had vandalized anyway. Thus, your first vandalism, and the other user's vandalism are still there. In cases like this, popups is a much better solution, as you can manually pick the last non-vandalized version and revert directly back to that. As for speed, it depends. Most of the time GML is faster than popups. Sometimes, when wikipedia is running slow the rollback button will be very slow in appearing, and I'll get impatient and just use popups.

Ok, so as to where to get it: its an addition to your monobook. You have two options here: you can use my custom monobook (which includes other tools, such as automatic AIV vandal reporting, automatic AfD voting, automatic talk space messages etc), has a better looking skin etc. In this case, you can go to User:Swatjester/monobook.js and User:Swatjester/monobook.css. Copy them to a text editor. Do an extended find and replace, and replace any instances of the word Swatjester with your own user name. Then, copy them to your own monobook.js and monobook.css file. After you've saved them on there, you will need to do a hard refresh on any browser pages you have open to wikipedia, especially your .js and .css pages. To do this, in firefox, hold ctrl+f5, in Internet explorer I believe it is shift+f5. If you notice the page turns a greyer tint, you have more options on the left hand bars, and you see a clock counting up at the top, you're successful. The next time you go to either an edit history page, or a diff page, you'll see rollback as an option.

If you do NOT want to install the custom monobook, I'd advise you to go to User:Bookofjude's page and ask them. Jude was the person who gave me the custom monobook in the first place (which had GML installed).

Hope this all helps. Let me know if you figure out where you've seen me before.

Fire! 19:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


Cool, ill have a proper read later. Thanks

Do i need to put them on User:Reedy Boy/monobook.css and such?

Do you play BF2? Cause thats one place that rings a bell, and then some BF2 forums....?

Im sure there's other places.... I've seen you somewhere else recently aswell!

Reedy Boy 19:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


Yes. I play in

Fire! 19:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Hmm, i reckon i have played with you on servers on more than one occasion!

Those files make a quite a lot of difference. It's gonna make my life a lot easier when i learn how to use it!

Just need to work out how to use it..... lol

Cheers


Reedy Boy 20:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


Any ideas why the javascript pop up box for edit summary's has stopped working? Also, i cant see any History page differnce, the other things have changed and its greyier!

A lot of the stuff seems to have disappeared....

Reedy Boy 21:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


no idea? You'd have to talk to Book of Jude.

Fire! 04:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

My monobook is a fork, however I operate without the .css as I don't care for the skin. The miscellanious tabs are intermittent, honestly I don't quite know what I'm missing. But I have the original skin, the warnings and vote tabs, and rollback works. Remember to reload your browser after saving; show preview won't reveal all the functions. T K E 05:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The extra "navigation" tabs only come up on a talk page or user page IIRC, as do the extra "toolbox" tabs. Up on top, the "talk messages" tab only appears when editing a user talk. "report" as well is only on user talk pages (maybe user pages too).

TKE, if you aren't running the automatic vandal reporting tool, you should. I believe it's called ARV, and its the include to lightdarkness' monobook within mine. It's simply awesome. Got a user vandalized past test-4? go to his talk page, click "report", enter a brief summary (optional), and voila, it checks to see ensure the vandal isn't already on AIV (if so it stops.) and if not, it posts the appropriate template on AIV.

Fire! 07:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

IT seems after i open it in FireFox also, and do a hard refresh, it'll come back up in both IE and FF. I think using wiki in FF is better as i have the toolbar to help me also. It also seems to work better in FF!

How do i run/get to the ARV?

Thanks for all this advice and help!

Reedy Boy 08:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Look in my monobook.js, it's the 2nd paragraph, after all the sections with the *'s. Copy and paste starting with "function inc" and ending with "inc("User:Lightdarkness/aiv.js");"

Do a hard refresh. Next time you go to a user talk page, you'll see "report" as a tab up at the top.

Fire! 17:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Aye, so theer is!

Thanks

Reedy Boy 12:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

ProhibitOnions's RfA

Thank you, Swatjester/archive4!
Thank you! ...for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 58/2/0. If you have any comments, or for some reason need any new-admin help, please let me know here. Sorry about the boilerplate. Regards, ProhibitOnions 22:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A KISS Rfa Thanks

Thank you, I've been promoted.

emp | talk 01:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 00:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you delete my entry on Chris Carrington to the Covington page. He has received the keys to the city twice. He is one of the most booked comedy acts in the south as well as an accomplished musician. Just because you don't know who someone is does not disqualify them from being a famous resident of a city.

Voting

Can you go back to the AFD on

Liberal Crime Squad and clarify what you meant by "s"? Thanks. DS 13:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Request for Arbitration on Monicasdude

Hey, Swatjester. Thought you might like to read this as to why we're wrong. T K E 19:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've been thinking of adding my account of Monicasdude's actions, in particular those regarding his talk page, on the Request for Arbitration page. However, as a relatively new user (I've only been here since the very end of February), I am unsure of the etiquette regarding this. Basically, I want to say that while I believe Monicasdude has raised valid points regarding the AfD process (partly by his own example), he does need to tone down his, well, tone. Should I add myself as a party and add a statement, or am I not involved enough in the discussion to be able to legitimately post. You can reply to me here (I'm watching your talk), or post a message on my talk page Thanks in advance for you help on this! Abhorsen327 22:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am about as new as yourself as far as regular editing, though I registered in October. I wouldn't have commented, and because of my newness I still did not particularly want to comment. Swatjester invited my opinion because I was around as the sh*t went down, as they say, and I was compelled after reading the other statements. Based on what you say you'd like to state, I actually think we were of similar fashion with what I said? You can reply here or not, just shamelessly chiming in. T K E 03:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not suggest adding yourself as a party unless you're actually in some way involved with Monicasdude. You should consider instead adding yourself as an "outside opinion."

Fire! 02:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I see what you mean, and agree that classifying myself as an "outside opinion" would be the proper course of action. Please forgive my ignorance of some of the Wiki systems, but could you please advise me as to how to do this? I've searched through the Request for Arbitration page(s), and have seen nothing regarding "outside opinion" Thanks for your help, and for putting up with a wiki (relative) newcomer. Abhorsen327 03:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not super familiar with ArbCom, but as I understand it, once it's accepted, it will be given it's own page. On that page will be sections for "outside opinion" or "statement from neutral 3rd party" or something to that effect. You'll just have to wait until the arbcom accepts (which it appears that it is going to). Note Stifle's comment at the top of Monicasdude's case, something like "ok we're full on john does but when this gets accepted we'll have more statements for evidence" or something like that. You may want to ask another user who's more familiar with arbcom: one admin has suggested
Fire! 03:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

My RFA

Hi Swatjester. I don't want to mass thank everyone because that wastes server space, but I wanted to personally thank you for your support in my RFA, since we talk in the counter-vandalism channel on IRC.--Adam (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this suggestion because I think it was going too far, even as a joke. --Tony Sidaway 15:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE

lol, I didn't know mens rea and actus reus were required elements of WP:BITE. I am going to start voting "Objection, Hearsay!" instead of "Delete" on AfD's :) :) -

τ ç ë 04:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Ha. Swatjester, if you get that in the monobook, I would absolutely be for it.
Heh. Why not, we already have deletions "without prejudice", arbcom "findings of fact", a priori editing, etc. Next time I have an arbcom case I'm going to file a motion for it by saying "XXXX wikipedian's negligent breach of WP:CIVIL duty gives rise to a cause of action" and citing FRCP. heh.
Fire! 05:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Clarence Thomas page

Hi. If you get a second, would you mind stopping by the Clarence Thomas Talk page? I'm in a dispute with a user over whether the fact that Thomas performed, at his home, Rush Limbaugh's third wedding should be mentioned in the article. I think it should. The other user does not. I'd appreciate your input. Thanks. Eleemosynary 02:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checking. Will continue to update on this page if that's alright with you.
Fire! 02:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree. It belongs in the article. It's a verifiable fact, it's inclusion does nothing to detract from the article, and it does not push any POV. Just because Thomas presided over Limbaugh's wedding does not mean there are other implications to this. It just means he presided. Many justices/judges do that for friends. And its not like its a big secret that Thomas is a strict originalist/member of the conservative justice bloc.
Fire! 02:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks! Much appreciated. Eleemosynary 03:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

If you are refering to the edits made to the Black Metal article i fail to see how this qualifies as vandalism. Both sections removed have clearly been debated over for some time on the discussion page and neither section really had any useful purpose in that article. I have removed both sections again as i honestly believe that simply deleteling them is far better than rewriting them. Big in albania 00:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking is not the answer. Rewriting, or moving them to their own articles may be, but blanking is not. I was not accusing you of vandalism by the way, only mentioning that blanking "can be" considered vandalism.
Fire! 01:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Pending arbitration

I have added a statement charging you with Wikistalking to the

RFAR to which you are a party. Monicasdude 20:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for notifying me of the reasons for your revert of my edit. I had only added in some comparisons as I had noticed there was already mention made of

Celts for the Imperials and the Bretons, respectively, and I felt if that was to be includable information, I should include some more. -jove

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. --Nlu (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on with
Travels With Charley: In Search of America
?

I'm an administrator on Wikibooks, and the contributors of the content here on Wikipedia have decided to take the path of least resistance and move the squabble over to Wikibooks instead. I sure hope that you didn't encourage that sort of behavior, and would like to stop that if it does occur.

As I understand it, you have a question over the status of this content, and cite Wikipedia policies, yet you wrote that you restored the content on the talk page, but didn't give an explaination beyond that it didn't fit the

WP:NOT
policies. Is this because it is a study guide? You felt it was a soap box? I guess I'm confused at why you reverted the content, and the contributors felt compelled to move all of the stuff to Wikibooks instead.

I know you are just trying to help maintain Wikipedia, but I don't want to be a combatant in this fight. Help me to resolve this issue if you can. --Robert Horning 17:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I had no idea that it moved over to Wikibooks. I cited the appropriate policies on the users talk, but a) it was Original Research which is not allowed at all on Wikipedia, and b) it was possibly copyvio, and c) it did not fit with WP:NOT where wikipedia is not a critical reviewer. I said nothing to them at all about wikibooks. They came up with that one on their own.

Fire! 17:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Thanks for the insight. At least I understand the justification you were using for this content and I think I can deal with it from here. --Robert Horning 03:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfARB

I have left a comment. At first I wasn't inclined to do so, but in reading over it a couple times I cannot believe how ludicrous the whole thing is. T K E 02:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I figured as an AfD watcher, you'd at least appreciate it.

Fire! 02:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


Charlie

Hi, I was wondering if you could post on the charlie talk page, so the user understands what's going on, im not sure they read/understand the edit comments as a newbie. It really does look like a teacher in over their head preparing for a class tomorrow. -- Stbalbach 04:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

great thanks. Now that I read it more closely your right. -- Stbalbach 04:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Like I thought, they have good intentions, just poor execution. No need to attack them, but no need to let the policy get violated either. Just inform them so they get it right next time.
Fire! 04:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


Thank you

 Thank you!
Hello Swatjester/archive4. Thank you for your support in my RfA! It passed with a final tally of 91/3/5. I am quite humbled and pleased by the community's show of confidence in me. If you need help or just want to talk, let me know. Cheers! -- Fang Aili 說嗎?

Re: RFC I deleted

Oops sorry about that. I guess I was the one that misunderstood policy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


RE stifilis

About the stifillis article: I was the one nominating it on AfD. I didn't know it was already deleted once at AfD. It's been speedily deleted at least twice already. It qualifies under CSD as a repost. I've withdrawn my AfD nomination, there's no need for it to be up there anymore. Therefore, I've reverted your addition of the AfD tag.

Fire! 07:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I replaced the AfD so the deleting admin could also close/lock the AfD, so users looking at the log page would not contribute to the AfD after the Article had been deleted. Just trying to be clean. :).--blue520 07:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was planning on fixing the AfD myself, but I'm lazy, and your way is better. Works for me, if you want to readd it cool.
Fire! 07:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry for not posting at the top originally. I have closed the AfDs for Stiffilis & Big mouth corner as they have been speedy deleted, to save a admin some time in the future. I just hope no one (admins) has any problems with me doing so, can not see it should be a problem though.--blue520 07:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't. Good job. Thanks.
Fire! 08:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Happy Easter!

It's bunny time - Happy Easter SWATJester! (I recommend a tall glass of cold beer to help the chocolate go down). --Alf melmac 16 April 2006

I don't know where you want t he edit. My section on complications is most certainly referenced. Please look at the reference. I will be happy to discuss this on the discussion page, but your simply deleting is not appropriate, and is rude. Further, I tried to reformat the types of implants. Having a chart as we;l;l as discussion was redundant. I most certainly did not 'blank '. If you want me to cite even furhter references for the complications section, I will be happy to do so. There are already two sources. The local complications is not even an issue. Why are you making it one? The only thing is that Oliver did not want to separate each complication. But for NPOV, it should be. Please work with me on this. I am not a ranter, as Oliver portrays me as. I am an engineer and attorney, and I do know what I am talking about.molly bloom 22:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - and actually Oliver is incorrect about the 'generations' of implants. If you look at his sources, it does not state what he claims. This is not a big deal, but he is incorrect. If I find a 'proper' citation about the generation, will you allow it without argument? Also, Oliver edited by including a table which is redundant. Why would you not object to this, especially when there is no reference?molly bloom 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly where I'd like my comments to go, as stated in no less than 3 different places on the page. The page contains a disclaimer that comments in the wrong section will be removed, so please do not call me
WP:V
and may be deleted.

By the way, I've been responding at your talk page, if you'd check.

Fire! 22:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't know who Oliver is, nor do I care. My only concern is that you are blanking his table, which looks fine, and adding your own, different section in, then calling his table "redundant". You'll note that your claims do not match the rest of the information on the cite: for instance, there is a section (sourced) citing 4 stages of something, you added a fifth. (without changing the total number, no less).

I have no desire to get into a content dispute of something that I could care less about. I don't follow this article, nor do I care about it, and I'm not going to continue to argue with you over it. I'm simply making sure that it doesn't get blanked. Please follow the rules. This is all I have to say on the matter.

Fire! 22:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I think it is a grand idea to help keep WIki NPOV and 'clean', but please take the time to investigate (and look at sources) before you start 'restoring'.

The 'table' had no citation. The 'reference' used for the text in no way discusses what it ostensibly is being used to address - the various generations of implants. Just citing a source, if it has nothing to do with the comment, is not a particularly good 'source'. I would give an engineering or law student an 'F' for that because it is not only incorrect, but deceitful. I still think the discussion about 'generations' is incorrect, but I am consulting someone far more knowledgable than Oliver or I on this issue. I won't change the text until I find out for sure. I have no interest in incorrect citations or statements. I am still learning how to reference properly. That is something I intend on mastering soon (I am still new at Wikopedia). As far as the 'table', it is a redundancy that has no place in the article. Similarly, I now cannot find the reference I had for my 'local complications'. I did have a citation, which evidently got lost in another's editing. Instead, I have provided an alternative reference, with the same information. I also provided another reference for the information about the inventor of saline imlants, which you also 'reverted' -- to an incorrect and unreferenced statement. The 'citation' Oliver used again had nothing to do with his edit. I would hope that 'administrators' (although I don't think you are, are you?) would investigate before making wholesale changes.molly bloom 00:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Swatjester/archive4! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply

the discussion page. PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Flag of Iceland?

I've seen, in your signatures elsewhere, that you have a small flag of Iceland as part of it. If you'll take a look at

this Wikipedia page, it says that pictures in signatures are frowned upon. That's the only thing keeping me from putting a picture in my signature. Just to let you know. --The Ninth Bright Shiner 01:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Deletion Issues

Hello my friend. I would just like if you could please clarify to why you nominated that the articles that I have just created of the Sengoku Period should be "deleted". As far as I can see everything is in order so such an action would be quite out of place. So if you could explain the reason to me I would be greatful.

-Darin Fidika

The article doesn't appear to meet wikipedia's notability standards. Please review
Fire! 02:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

END OF PAGE!

Do not edit further. All new edits go to the top of this page.


Click here to leave a message for Swatjester/archive4.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swatjester/archive4&oldid=1133797912"