This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You have written a nice ArbCom election statement! Several days ago, I left a question, but it has not been answered. Would you like to answer it? Thank you. Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 19:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed it, I just answered. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And my thanks to Daniel (above) for the example--I am a clutz with coding! Jeffpw ( talk) 22:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that your protection of Stephen M. Cohen is still in effect. There is now an WP:RFPP unprotection request for that page. Did the "pending legal action" ever occur? Is there an OTRS tracking number? Or was this just a justifiably cautious response to a now-banned user's claims of what ammounts to WP:OFFICE action? DMacks ( talk) 02:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot comment on whether or not action did occur. I will unprotect the page for the moment, and keep an eye on it pending future need to reprotect. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Benjiboi 21:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I just want to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Merry Christmas! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 01:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You recently removed a paragraph entitled "World Policy Council" from Extraordinary rendition indicating that this was an "inappropriate source". I have restored the paragraph based on the wikipedia WP:BRD policy and have created the third step to discuss what wikipedia policy indicates this would be a inapproprate source at Talk:Extraordinary rendition#World policy council. thanks.--Ccson (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Swatjester, just letting you know that I noticed this page had been recreated eventhough it was deleted. I was about to tag it for speedy it per WP:CSD, but decided to put it up for AFD instead. -- Strothra ( talk) 22:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you want your talk page protected or semi-protected? If so, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't bother me. I can always protect/semi-protect it myself if I need to. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For the Supernatural page, an anon 201.130.201.154 keeps removing people from the cast section and moving them to incorrect places. He's vandalized other articles and has been given a final warning, but according to policies what he's doing on the Supernatural page doesn't count as vandalism. Do you have any suggestions on what I can do? Thanks. Ophois ( talk) 02:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear friend, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Eve, and that 2008 is your best year yet! ~ Riana ⁂ 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I am writing to you as a neutral admin whose opinion I have come to trust. In Arbcom proceedings, may one simply change their statements, removing text instead of striking it out? It seems to me that as Arbcom is as close as Wikipedia comes to actual legal proceedings, such text distortion should not be allowed, simply because it makes the statements of other editors incomprehensible. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Jeffpw ( talk) 18:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not good taste, and your thoughts are absolutely spot on, but it's allowable, and preventing it would probably cause more problems than it is worth. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, you have been listed as a party in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-01 Extraordinary rendition by the United States. I have accepted the case as mediator, and would like to know if you accept me as mediator. I hope that a satisfactory compromise can be reached. Regards, Keilana ^talk _(recall) 20:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time to participate in such a case, nor inclination, and mediation is inappropriate before other measures of dispute resolution have resolved (such as the unresolved talk page usage, WP:3O, RFC, etc.) This case should not have been accepted for mediation, and I have no intention of participating in any mediation. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll close the case. Keilana ^talk _(recall) 15:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

More activity there! · AndonicO ^Talk 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, and Happy New year. :) · AndonicO ^Talk 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The December 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 23:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. You semi-protected this article back on August 3 to prevent vandalism from anon IPs, which made sense as Goldberg had recently publicly criticised Wikipedia at the time. However, five months later, this affair seems to have been forgotten, and so I believe it would now be safe to unprotect the article. If you agree, please do so. Thanks in advance. Terraxos ( talk) 01:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wilco. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Over the New Year's holiday, a dispute has arisen over a purported threat to report a Wikipedia editor in the American military for misuse of military computers to edit Wikipedia. This has been raging over several talk pages and is now going to Arbcom.

Aside from the issue of whether a threat was really made, some are now starting to say that other U.S. military members have an obligation to report any abuse of military computers.

• User talk:Orangemarlin#Contacting people's employers in real life
• User talk:Orangemarlin#Please justify revert
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jim62sch (resolved)
• User talk:MastCell#In response to this
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jim62sch

My own guess is that your military probably happily tolerates a lot of computer use by off-duty folks stuck in out-of-the-way spots working odd hours.

Tempers are rising and positions hardening among several high-volume editors; if you get the chance, would you mind clearing your throat and stepping in with your own experience? I'm confident it's probably better-informed than others', given your recent military experience and legal training.

Thanks, -- A. B. ^(talk) 23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me a few days. I'll look at this, but I'd really have to research a bit because I don't know the slightest bit about any obligation to report abuse of military computers. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think one question is whether editing from military computers is always inappropriate. My suspicion that personal use of some government computers (or government LANs using personal laptops) is probably allowed and even encouraged when it involves off-duty personnel stuck in isolated locations or on some sort of alert status at an air base. Did you ever see this? Was it considered inappropriate? -- A. B. ^(talk) 14:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been resolved on foundation-l. I contacted a JAG friend, and am waiting for a response, but the summation is that basically this is a non-issue. My FOB had two internet labs, one with military owned computers. My commander's laptop had internet in Iraq. My command structure all had internet access for personal use at our post in Tallahassee. There are some rules about when you can do it, and what kind of protection is needed for computers that contain classified data, but the end result is that there is no blanket ban on using military computers for personal use. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, -- A. B. ^(talk) 04:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I got the answer back from the JAG, and the answer was that On-duty use is okay when approved by the commander and it does not interfere with performance of duties. Off-duty use is generally unlimitedly permitted at the commander's discretion as long as no standing orders are violated (i.e. don't go to porn sites, don't hack things). As far as he is aware, there is no UCMJ obligation to report another military user. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. -- A. B. ^(talk) 04:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in reverting the edit - I don't know enough about the issue - but you have certainly peaked my interest. If you want to maintain confidentiality you can email me at timmccloud @ charter.net. ΤΓ 703 Timmccloud ( talk) 13:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't go into detail either here or by email, but it's an OTRS issue. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this page has now been fully protected for 6 months. Might it be time to life or reduce protection? WjB scribe 01:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memeber of the Firearms Wikiproject. Can you take a look? Sf46 ( talk) 19:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for ending the edit war on the M1 carbine from the same dumbass that locked down other gun pages. It was just plain stupid, seeing that a whole crowd of people teamed up against him. -- Chinese3126 ( talk) 02:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

I went to FSU. That would be blasphemy. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, have a great new year, and I look forward to working with you in this new text community!  :) -- El on ka 04:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards,-- Ccson ( talk) 20:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Boldly make the desired change to the page.
2. Wait until someone reverts your change or makes another substantial edit. DO NOT revert this change!
3. If a disagreement arises, gracefully back down a bit, and explain and discuss your reasoning with the reverter and consider their different views too (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change.

You were step 1. I was step2. Step 3 requires you and I do discuss, step 2 says DO NOT revert this change. However you did revert and continue. Step 3 was for you and I to discuss and attempt an truce.

Third Opinon, RSN, etc were progessive steps if one of the prior steps did not work. You have resisted all steps, including BRD, mediation cabal, you berated the RSN editors for their opinion and you misinterpret their comments.-- Ccson ( talk) 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You apparently don't understand how the dispute resolution process works. You escalated to arbitration AND mediation prematurely, without attempting an RFC, or to allow the RSN to develop. I did no such thing on the RSN, you are the only one attempting to push a POV. Stop it, as it's becoming highly disruptive. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, you might want to note that WP:BRD is not policy nor guideline, and WP:ROWN is an essay. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your revision deletion of Beth Medrash Govoha affected all edits prior to 12:53, November 29, 2007, - all its prior history has been deleted - NOT just "selective edits"as you commented in the discussion section. Joseph ( talk) 19:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC) That deletion was done by Pathoschild, not by me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This was marked as rejected for four months before KillerChihuahua changed it to "guideline" with no discussion. When I changed it back to proposed on Jan 2, I left a note on the village pump, and nobody there seemed to think it was a guideline. [1] I also left a note on the talk page when I demoted it, and nobody there thought it was a guideline. I encourage you, if you think it ever had consensus, to find any documentation of it. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I also posted on the village pump again. [2] — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 03:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It was never contested as a guideline, which gives it some weight as such, but your marking of historical had no consensus, and does not have the weight behind it of lack of being contested. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, your first diff is unconvincing: the only respondent disagrees with you that it was ever rejected. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The respondent says "You were right to change it back, since consensus needs to be reached before making it a guideline" — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 04:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It was never contested because the promotion was never announced. It was contested (by me and others) when it was proposed, which is why it was tagged rejected. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 04:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we've ever met, but I thought I'd let you know I lol'd at your userpage. Truly amazing, and very entertaining. Out of curiosity, who made it? Your friend appears to have a similar one.-- CM ( talk) 02:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

See the attribution chain at the bottom of the user page. I got it from User:Gurch ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are a member of the Wikiproject Military History. I saw how you handled things on the M-1 Carbine issue and I like your style. I'm having some issues on the article associated with Talk:Military history of African Americans. Do you have nay suggestions about this? Sf46 ( talk) 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My knowledge of the Civil War is limited to tactics, sorry. I'll take a look at the dispute though. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, I can't see any reason why the stuff you put in was removed. It's reliably sourced, and meets policy. What's his argument for removing it? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Swatjester. I'm wondering if you know of any place on-site, or of particular users, that coordinate regarding War in Afghanistan (2001–present)? My immediate reason for asking is Operation_Anaconda#Battle_of_Takur_Ghar. Tonight I picked up one of the books listed, Roberts Ridge, and wanted to see if I could find someone with another, Not a Good Day to Die. This engagement could easily have its own page. Marskell ( talk) 20:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Note a call and response. Marskell ( talk) 22:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST would be a good start. I actually have Not a Good Day to Die, but I have no idea where it is. I agree with you though, The Battle of Takur Ghar merits it's own article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started a stub, from a redirect: Battle of Takur Ghar. You might watchlist it, to track wording as I add it. When it's decently done up, I'll re-remind you. Cheers, Marskell ( talk) 20:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got my picture. Thanks anyway. XD Miranda 02:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please argue why you think the controversy FA article does not require an NPOV tag. The part is only referenced by ONE side of the story. Neutrality does not equal having articles cited with only 1 source. You accuse me of having no civility etc, that's fine, i lost my cool. But you show no will for consensus where it is crystal clear that there is a dispute (see the fa talk page). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Step_4:_Discussing_with_the_other_party
I'm sure you read that before, but you're not discussing anything, just removing. I suggest that we discuss this issue with the help of an instant message service, perhaps we can get to a truce. LSky ( talk) 21:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You can email me at swatjester (at) gmail (dot com) if you'd like, but I don't go on IM much. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please try to make an exception here, because this delayed messaging of eachother (e-mailing is pretty much the same) doesn't resolve anything. Even better, do you have a microphone so we could use a voice chat application? IRC is also an option, I know you (have) use(d) that. LSky ( talk) 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm abstaining from using IM as much as possible due to law school concerns. Email will work fine as long as you and I don't revert each other any further. It probably will be better since we'll both have time to consider our words. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You fully protected the article on 2007-10-09, per an OTRS ticket which I have no accesses to. Is this protection still necessary? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but probably not. I'm reducing it to semi for the meanwhile. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've created a request for mediation. Please list there if you agree or disagree to participate.-- Ccson ( talk) 21:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

According to your TWINKLE warning on my talk page, you nominated iPhony for deletion. Errant message? I don't see anything on the article or AfD roster to suggest that you actually did send it to AfD. Thanks for any clarification. ju66l3r ( talk) 16:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it malformed the nomination, and then afterwards I saw that it had already survived an AfD, so I decided to leave it be. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. ju66l3r ( talk) 19:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Cnbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 00:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to take a break, then do, but don't leave completely. Corvus cornix _talk 05:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I got your point. :-) You're absolutely right. If it comes down to evidence of past attacks and disruption et al, let me know and I'll provide plenty of links and diffs to corroborate the chronic abusiveness of said editor. Maybe this will be the last straw to get him indef blocked like his closest pal and defender. Anyway, don't go and don't get too disheartened. You are appreciated, even if you feel more attacked than anything else at some times (Squeak can tend to make us feel that way). VigilancePrime ( talk) 05:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While I think you could be less combative at times (I suppose we all could), you bring a lot of sanity to the project. I hope you decide to stay. — xDanielx ^T/ _C\ ^R 06:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Man, not another experienced administrator leaving :( Please take the time to consider a wikibreak, but your contributions have been well valued. Thanks for your hard (and rather difficult work). Cheers Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 07:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, I don't, for various reasons, regularly add my voice to the "don't go" lovefests that often present themselves when a long-standing editor announces, usually (at least ostensibly) abruptly, and I am surprised to find that I do so here since I have, in the past, had occasion to be more than a little critical of you (principally, as you may recall, with respect to BLP issues, on which our views differ greatly, and a few OTRS items) and have suggested in some informal context that the net effect on the project of your being an admin might well be negative. Nevertheless, it is clear that you did not err here, and it is exceedingly unfortunate some reacted so poorly to your being eminently reasonable and acting rightly. Joe 08:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never had any dealings with you before this issue. I think you made an excellent call in reversing a deletion made under false pretenses. Such a deletion, for such an editor, cannot be made lightly & without scrutiny. Thank you for speaking truth to power in this matter. Stick around, help the project improve. Or at least, stay for the floorshow.  :-) -- SSB ohio 17:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm not one to typically invoke an oh shit im leaving thing. I was fed up with Wikipedia last night, and decided to sleep on it to see if this is a project that I wanted to continue to contribute to. I came to the conclusion that it is not what it used to be, but it's not as far gone as I thought it was last night. Therefore, I'm going to give Wikipedia a last chance. I still 110% believe that I did the right thing last night, and I absolutely will not apologize for doing what the policies and guidelines allow and instruct me to do. I still believe that it's a copout that ArbCom has invoked power over this. I believe that it's beyond their authority. I believe that as editors we are not so dense and stupid as to be bound and gagged by assuming good faith. Good faith is not a suicide pact. When you have extensive reason to believe something is not legit, you don't owe it full weight and authority. I am still deeply hurt by the collective decision that my words and actions in following what the rules say, were wrong and that a user who has 14 blocks, a year long arbcom parole that he violated 5 times and was blocked for each time, and has a recent history of making misleading comments and even lies to get his way, was given the full weight and protection that this project can offer, while threatening desysops at me. Not only am I hurt by the collective decision, I've lost an extreme amount of respect for the "common sense" rationalizing abilities of multiple editors here, including at least one I had copious amounts of respect for before. But I'm not hurt enough to give up on this project. I thought about abandoning en.wp, and only working at commons, en.wikiversity, and latin wikipedia, but there is too much work that needs to be done. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. (Glad you're still here, not glad that you had to go through all that, of course.) VigilancePrime ( talk) 19:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

Another question, and I hate to interject on something personal, but what is "latin wikipedia"? Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Right now you're on the English language Wikipedia. But there are Wikipedia's in many different languages. One such is the Latin Wikipedia, (or Vicipaedia Latina) which is written entirely in the latin language (lingua latina). I'm using it to help me learn latin. Sometimes people forget that Wikipedia is an amazing language learning tool. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, don't leave. I have been thinking about you lately (imagineselo) , I am not going to leave, and I hope you don't either. Lets just live and let live. FTR I have removed Perverted-Justice from my watchlist, do what you will. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you are still around. I have seen you deal with many issues, and I am seeking your input. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Rotten_Tomatoes_Critic_Blogs User:Vary is an admin. She felt that it was important to start an feud over the removal of a source for not meeting Wikipedia standards. Besides following me to other pages and provoking 3RR and then reporting it (4RR - 2 on two different days, so 2 reverts a day, with different set of information, but barely within the 24 hours so it counted as 3RR), she decided that she will not stand to deal with this source not being counted as legitimate. The complaint by myself and the problem held by others is that it is a document hosted by the Rotten Tomatoes website without an author or copyright information, and the information needed is not directly attributed in a quote to anyone, so there is no way to verify if it is legitimate. Even if it was verified, it would be seen as rumor, as the information (nickname of the Cloverfield (creature) being "clover" by the crew) would not be done by someone with authority to name the creature such). Instead of going to the reliable source forum (where there is no consensus supporting her), she went to the Wikiproject for Film, and had two people say they support Rotten Tomatoes as being verifiable. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Rotten Tomatoes.

However, her information lacks context for the discussion on the matter, and lacks any actual information, so their approval is vague at best. She then tries to claim that: "The editors at WP:FILM have overwhelmingly found this source acceptable and reliable.". Only two people spoke, and two people does not make a consensus. As an admin, she should know the various rules and know that she exaggerated the consensus spoke and is taking this personally, which is also against Wikipedia policy. I feel that this admin is no longer capable of doing anything but take this personally, and she refuses to take a Wikibreak. It has even affected her ability to edit, which is reflected on her contributions. If you notice, most of her additions in the past few days have been arguments over the verifiability of the link, without her actually proving that there is any proof behind her assertions. She is unable to answer a) who to attribute the source to b) how can we be sure its legitimate c) who of the crew actually called the creature "clover" and d) if that warrants being mentioned in the creature page since it is not the official name deemed by the Producer or Director. Thank you for your consideration of this matter, and I seek to your input on this matter. Ottava Rima ( talk) 19:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Give me a little bit, and I'll look into this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

SWAT, on a lighter note (and since you were obviously online not long ago), could I trouble you to take a quick gander at this welcome template and tell me your thoughts on it as far as 1. appearance, 2. content/links, and 3. readability? I value your opinions and would like to get at least a couple sets of outside eyes on it before I start using it. Thanks bunches! VigilancePrime ( talk) 19:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

I like it. I'd suggest under the "personal suggestions" section to add a bolded link to WP:V, because that is one of our most important policies, and IMHO one of the first things a new user should know. Verifiable and referenced materials are not likely to disappear shortly after a user contributes them, which is one of the chief complaints of new users (that they are reverted too fast). Also consider a small section on how to use the <ref>Reference</ref> tags and the Reflist template., as that will go even further to ensuring that new users reference their material. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Great catch! I added that in the how-to section and then moved it (WP:V) up along with WP:N and WP:RS, while putting the WP:Citing sources on the left with a comment. Hopefully, it maintains the formatting (even columns) and look. Thanks for your help. I think it's just about ready to be used. A little more tweaking as I notice little nit-picks here and there. Thanks again! VigilancePrime ( talk) 22:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

By the way, are you, by chance, a WikiDragon? You seem like you would be or at least are similar. That's great. There's not many of us. (If not, that's fine too, cause you're still a great editor and admin and we appreciate you.) VigilancePrime ( talk) 22:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at all of those categories, and none of them seem to apply to me. For instance, I'm semi-wiki ogre'ish in that I edit in spurts, but my dry spells aren't long enough to qualify. I do make bold changes like wikidragons, but I also make little changes. I don't quite fit as a wikignome because while I do a lot of that kind of work with OTRS, I don't do anywhere NEAR as much as the editors I truly think of wikignomes. So, I'm somewhere in the middle. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand. I tend to do a lot of grammar correction, which is diametrically opposed to the classic WikiDragon MO, but I primarily make sweeping changes, I'm outspoken (much more now than I used to be), and I tend to defend those changes. Anyway, I incorporated your comments into the Welcome and I think I will start using it tonight or tomorrow. I can't see anything else that needs to be tweaked. Let me know if anything comes to your mind. I really appreciate your time and help in taking a look! Thanks!!! VigilancePrime ( talk) 05:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

The January 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 01:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Are you serious? Good thing I didn't look into the matter - I just acted on a request from a friend. Someone gets death threats (or should I say, "gets death threats yet again") and not only undelete the page, you use menacing language to tell me to undelete the page on procedural grounds? Surely you've read this? You are willing to sacrifice the safety of an editor simply because he used to wrong template?

The safety of editors is paramount. <striking a portion my comments> Guettarda ( talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this edit summary - you KNOW better. Personal attacks are not to be tolerated, even in edit summaries. Guettarda ( talk) 15:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it's you that needs to look more into the situation without making snap decisions. Had you looked into it, you'd find that there is actually no evidence whatsoever of there being any death threats, that he lied twice about the reason for deleting the pages. There were no death threats at all on his page, and had he been more clear about what he was doing instead of being disruptive, this would have been resolved much more easily. I mean, you're referring to an editor with 14 blocks, a year long arbcom parole, and an extensive history of being one of the most disruptive people on this project. So, if that's the kind of behavior that you condone, I don't want your "respect". I won't point out the sheer hypocrisy of you warning me about my edit summary, while leaving a message saying how I utterly disgust you. Pot, Kettle, you fill in the rest. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks despite a warning. Blocked. Guettarda ( talk) 15:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't block users you're in a despute with. Lara ❤ Love 15:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, If you really thought a block was justified, you should have asked your peers to look into it due to your involvement. Frankly I cannot see the benefit to this block, but I do see your direct involvement in this dispute. I would have reversed this block if it was not already reversed. . _(1 == 2)^Until 16:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this block was completely inappropriate. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to use language that would be construed as a PA. Telling you what I felt about your behaviour was not, IMO, a personal attack. But others disgree, so I will strike it. Guettarda ( talk) 17:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Classic non-apology, but oh well. Bellwether ^B _C 03:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty impressive. How long did it take for you to put it together? Rebelyell2006 ( talk) 16:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't, I borrowed it from User:Gurch. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Swatjester, I hope the admins at wiki aren't turning a blind eye to this. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/06/the_cult_of_wikipedia/. I understand some consider the source tabloid (including the admin cited in the article), but I read the article and followed the edits, and there's a larger problem here. I've found another pattern to the edits that cluster around related groups and concepts in regards to said administrator. I checked the COI noticeboard and I get the sense this is being quickly swept under the rug. Can you keep me updated on this issue and how it is being handled, if you don't mind? Thanks in advance. Respectfully, -- Pax Arcane 03:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Can't keep you updated because I don't know Jossi, I don't know who Prem Nawat is, or however you spell it, and I don't use the COI noticeboard. Sorry. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks anyway. Figured the article was worth looking at. -- Pax Arcane 20:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Swat, last night (while I was asleep) I had a userspace page speedy deleted with a reason of G4 (recreation of deleted material). Yes, I had once had the page deleted at my request, but I was reusing the userspace title for a new project. The content in the page was existing elsewhere undeleted. The page was User:VigilancePrime/ACS and I would like to ask that you restore it for me. It's nothing more than a single point of reference for four other existing userpages, all of which still exist. It was not a good speedy delete (or a good delete at all), but I can see where the admin may have made the errorneous assumption that it was. If you can help, I would appreciate it. Thanks! VigilancePrime ( talk) 16:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

For my own reference, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:VigilancePrime/ACS . I'll look at it at some point. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That was an original page, different from this one. I guess I probably shouldn't have re-used the name? I'm looking at the one deleted w/o MfD or discussion (speedy) last night. I think it was a good faith deletion, because I reused the name (again, bad call on my part!). Just to be clear. Perhaps restoring it with a new name? The page itself had four top-level (only one "=" on each side of the heading) sections. Thanks again for checking into it. VigilancePrime ( talk) 04:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Moot now. but...

totally unrelated requests

There's a couple pages I would like to userfy... could you undelete and move them as outlined in WP:Userfication please? They are:

• Scottish Air News - to User:VigilancePrime/Userfied/Scottish Air News
• The original The Adventures of Captain Proton - to User:VigilancePrime/Userfied/The Adventures of Captain Proton
• The talk page only of Image talk:Laurel McGoff (Kid Nation) SC.jpg - to User:VigilancePrime/Userfied/Image:Laurel McGoff (Kid Nation) SC.jpg
• Spyderchat (and/or User:VigilancePrime/Spyderchat, which I db-userreq'ed but changed my mind about) - to User:VigilancePrime/Userfied/Spyderchat

I would greatly appreciate your help. No rush... I wasn't planning on editing for a few more days anyway... but an AfD kinda forced me to come back early (wanted to take a few days off). VigilancePrime ( talk) 05:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

I've done 1, 2, and 4. I'm holding off on 3, because I'm not sure that image and image talk namespaces are meant to be userfied. They're not mentioned in WP:USERFICATION. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I meant to explain why... I had added some templated information on that page that I need to retain It could be userfied to something like User:VigilancePrime/Scraps instead. I forgot about that part. I had meant to copy it out but the page got deleted before I could... VigilancePrime ( talk) 16:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC) THANKS!

a few more?

Some others if you have a moment that I'd like to be able to userfy, at least to take a look at:

• Tricket to User:VigilancePrime/Userfied/Tricket (This one could be used as a perfect example of what NOT to do and I think it could serve as educational. I'd like the opportunity to take a look at it at least.)
• List of fictitious company names used by Microsoft to User:VigilancePrime/Userfied/List of fictitious company names used by Microsoft
• Post Ejaculatory Guilt Syndrome to User:VigilancePrime/Userfied/Post Ejaculatory Guilt Syndrome
• Laserbeak's Fury to User:VigilancePrime/Userfied/Laserbeak's Fury

(No rush.) Thanks, Swat! VigilancePrime ( talk) 05:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

:-) VigilancePrime ( talk) 04:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

'm not ignoring it, just can't get to it right now. Maybe tomorrow during a lull in classes. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Just figured everyone could use a smile! VigilancePrime ( talk) 04:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

THANK YOU!!! VigilancePrime ( talk) 04:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify (privately, if necessary) the nature of the OTRS complaint which you cited when redirecting star post to T post? From the edits you made to the latter article, it seems as if you (or the complainer) are asserting that the former is a synonym for the latter — which seems quite odd, since it's quite easy using Google to find pages (e.g. [3]) using both terms for apparently distinct products. If anything, it would seem to me that "star post" may be the more generic term, being at least sometimes applied also to T posts as well as to the Y-shaped posts formerly discussed on that page. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 07:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, they're not the same thing. However, Star Post refers to both the generic term for the Y-posts, as well as a specific brand of Y-posts. In order to satisfy a legal complaint, it is better that we redirect star post to T post. Beyond that, I can't be more informative, sorry. I will clarify my changes in the article, though. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If there was a public post, I would appreciate seeing the link too. I take it that this is one of those things like "Kleenex" not being used as a generic for "Facial Tissue?" Or Jell-O for gelatin, etc...? Problem is, T-Post is a different shape and in the states no one uses "Y-Posts" (at least, not out west, anyway). I guess I see what you are trying to do and will let it sit for a bit, but can you give those of us who care (even if we don't care tremendously) a heads up so I can make the call as to whether I need to create a whole new article on "steel posts" that covers all the shapes? (OK, so Wikipedia does have some really obscure articles and this is one, but hey, T-Posts or steel posts are the agricultural person's duct tape!)(grin). Montanabw ^(talk) 02:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't disclose the details, since the post is in the OTRS legal queue, but I do realize that T-posts are the US version of the Australian Y-post. My intent was for the T-post article to also include a section on Y-posts as being similar, but if you want to make a generic new article on "steel posts" for both shapes, that would be fine. As for the agricultural person's duct tape, well, T-post pickets are the military man's house and home. We make our fortifications using them. ;) ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah! So the Military has duct tape AND steel posts! Excellent! Well, ag folks do use duct tape, as well as baling twine AND steel posts! Top that! (LOL!) Montanabw ^(talk) 03:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I loves me some baling twine. It's how we stop leaks in the military. But, did you know that you can use 550 cord to live in the wilderness for weeks at a time? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Heck, all we need is a pocket knife! (grin) Montanabw ^(talk) 05:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

But seriously, just moved the article to become steel fence post, check the edits I made (I mention star posts) to be sure there are no OTRS issues with what's there now. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No issues. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Swat, could you take a look at this AfD? I don't know if you'll want to comment in it or admin-finish it or neither... PERSONALLY, I think it's an obvious keep case. Others think it's an obvious delete case. I'm thinking, objectively, that it is probably heading down the road of "closed (keep) as no consensus". I'm not going to say any more either way so that you can take a look and make up your own mind on how you want to proceed with or in it, if at all. However it goes, your involvement in these matters, cool head and common sense are always appreciated. VigilancePrime ( talk) 04:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Woody ( talk) 10:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked back at the edits. An anonymous vandal inserted the citation needed. It was already cited by Bartley (that statement was included in the whole set of the paragraph, Bartley, 5 pages). The version now is one reverted back to essentially a vandal edit. -- Pax Arcane 23:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Woot. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fixed. Took out the "fact date January 2008," added a slightly superfulous/redundant ref, and inserted the info back in. Is that procedure of how to handle these types of issues? I'm trying to get it right. -- Pax Arcane 04:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry didn't see your answer. Yeah. It's better to have superfluous refs. Using the "name" attribute on refs can help with that, since it cuts down on space in both the content section and the references section. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, WP:BITE is indeed valid. I did then give a maturer response. Good to see you are still here, and look forward to collaborating with you in the future. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Look buddy, don't take this the wrong way, but I don't really care if you don't believe that my little brother editing from my IP address isn't convincing. It's truth. He's been staying at my house for 3 months while he's home from school, his military school operates in tri-mesters, and so he's got approximately 3 months off from school at a time, unfortunately our parents are no longer alive...so he lives with me when he's home. He does report to basic training in June though, so hopefully they'll work some of his immaturity out of him. You cite edits from then, yet you blocked it for a wholly unreasonable amount of time, which another administrator agreed with. Blocking the entire IP and inconveniencing my wife, me and my daughter is both unreasonable and under the circumstances unwarranted. I've had, in the past, my fair share of disagreements with people on here, have been blocked for things worse than what my brother was doing, and it certainly was not for a whole year. 12 hours for an initial block, or 24, or even 2-3 days would have been more than reasonable, not a full year. I feel as though, and feel free to disagee, you blocked the IP while upset and issued a block much longer than necessary. You'll notice from the edit summaries that numerous subjects are edited. My wife focuses quite a bit on sports, my daughter on Disney characters (much to my dismay) and my username edit history is mostly soccer related or hollywood related articles. I used to work at a high school and the IP address there was blocked quite a bit for VERY flagrant disegard for wikipedia policy (blanking pages with the f-word, inserting inappropriate pictures, etc), and it was never longer than a day or two before it was un-blocked. I've taken a look through the edits that were made, and in all honesty, they were NOT that disruptive. Sure it was an edit war between two users, you included SWATJester, but a year long block was totally out of line. Inconveniencing an entire family, simply because you were upset, isn't right. Daniel Case agreed that he didn't think a year long initial block was warranted, and I think if you look at it with a neutral mind, you will as well. I'm also a bit troubled that you, an involved party in the dispute, took it upon yourself to issue a block, rather than reporting it and letting a neutral party look into the situation and act on it. Surely as an administrator you were well within your right to act as you did, but for the good of the community, administrators should recuse themselves from issues such as this where they are an involved party. I have looked through recent block logs and have noticed that users with much worse edit histories than what my brother was blocked for doing, have not received anywhere near a year long block, some users were blocked for two weeks, 30 days, two months, etc. I find it disturbing that you're choosing to block this shared IP address for an entire year. Surely you must see that it's unreasonable and vengeful. Batman2005 ( talk) 01:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, get your terminology straight. It's not a "shared IP", it's a static IP, that several members of your family share. Second, I frankly don't believe your argument about your little brother's school, because we've had trouble from that IP address consistently over the past year. Third, it was an anon only block, which means that any registered accounts on that address will not be inconvenienced. As I said, if your wife wants to register an account to edit, she can do so via unblock-en-l. However, to prevent further damage to the project, I will be keeping that IP address blocked. Please also note that since our blocks are preventative, not punitive (despite what you may think), differentiating between degrees of disruption is irrelevant. It's our job to prevent ANY disruption to Wikipedia, and keeping this IP address blocked will do just that. As I've said, this block does not affect your account, and it will not affect your wife's account when she registers. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

SwatJester, I addressed you in a wholly respectful and mature manner, and presented many reasonable points for your consideration. I find it unfortunate that you could not respond with the same. I've come to expect more of administrators, yet actions such as yours are disheartening to other editors. Additionally, you claim trouble from the IP over the past year...but as has been pointed out, there has never been a block. Yet in one moment of you being upset, you issue an unreasonable block affecting an entire family. I'll thank you to have no further contact with me. Batman2005 ( talk) 03:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the fact that you don't like my answer does not make it immature or disrespectful. And I'll note that you're the one who came into contact with me, not the other way around. I think you ought to relax and calm down, and stop exaggerating. This block does not affect you, or your family since you can just register. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Not an insult but a pointer towards the correct type of outlet for their creative talents - it's not uncivil, it's a straight forward suggestion and I'll continue to point out to people when wikipedia is not suitable for their original research. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 19:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Then suggest it in a more civil manner. Saying "Go get a blog" is brusque and biting, where as saying "perhaps a blog might be better suited for you" is much less bitey. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am Barkjon. I am requesting the rollback feature and notice you were willing to grant a user that feature. I already know how to use the feature, as I am a burecrat on the Club Penguin Wiki. See more other reasons on the page that you request rollback rights on. Reply on my talk page. P.S. You have a really cool user page!--  Barkjon  01:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. And you were denied on the rollback request page for a stupid reason, I must add. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you so much.--  Barkjon  18:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Can categories be undeleted and userfied? I ask as I would like to userfy WikiFauna cats that were inconsistently deleted (I can't believe we actually wasted our time discussing this!). I'd userfy all of the categories for now, but am particularly interested in "saving" the Category:Wikipedian WikiDragons one. I don't see any logical reason for their deletions (especially considering two were kept, which seems to snub all editors using the other four), and think/hope that they may be able to be improved and re-submitted in the future. Tanks for taking a look! VigilancePrime ( talk) 07:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

Can Categories be undeleted and userfied? I don't really know. Off the top of my head, I'd say it's technically impossible, since the way categories work. Categories are populated by adding the category on the article's page. I don't think there is a way to simulate the category page on a user page. But, even if you could, you'd have to go back and add in all the articles. I don't think it's possible, sorry. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

More accurately, the content within the category page. That's what I meant to say. (Also, can I get the TEXT from the image talk page mentioned awhile back, above?) VigilancePrime ( talk) 08:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying: I don't think I can get the content within the category page, because it's been depopulated. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Swatjester. I see you are active on the talk page at Bear Grylls. Could you look into the block of User:MickMacNee and whether you think the 3RR verdict is justified? Thanks. I've also notified East718, the blocking admin. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I find the block to be fair. As I noted on the talk page, the insertion of the "part-time" qualifier to the TA designation is redundant at best, and undue weight at worst, and it's certainly not something we need in a BLP. Granted, the IP he was edit warring with is a persistent abuser on that page, BUT, the edit war between MickMacNee and the IP was not over abuse, it was over a good faith edit (not to mention that MickMacNee was, as mentioned above, on the wrong side of BLP for that edit). Had the content of their dispute been different, I would suggest lifting the block, but given the content, I'd say the block should stand. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Carcharoth ( talk) 14:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What's defamtory about my edit? -- 172.159.94.137 ( talk) 18:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Defamatory? Nothing. It still violates WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and is bad writing. Redundant writing is redundant. It's also perpetuating an edit war, which is unacceptable. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for granting me the rollback feature. LessThanClippers ( talk) 19:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Maxim beat me to it. Thank him. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! -- Eurocopter tigre ( talk) 16:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never done an unblock review, so it would probably be impossible for me to have an ongoing series of inappropriate unblock reviews. Which means that I am not bullying blocked users, because I have never engaged in declining a review. You can feel free to remove that accusation from my talk page at any time. It's baseless. the_undertow ^talk 04:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Correction: It was the block log message. It's therefore even MORE inappropriate. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

How is that more appropriate? How was I bullying blocked users? I blocked them according to policy. Bullying implies I was abusing them in some way. And a history? FOUR block summaries were posted on my talk page - three deserved, especially the guy who said he was going to rape and kill some woman. But maybe I hurt his feelings by calling him a waste of carbon. the_undertow ^talk 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You blocked them according to policy. But policy never EVER gives you the right to personally attack another user by referring to him as a waste of carbon, even if he is one. How can you not understand that? You don't make tasteless jokes in block messages. It's the very definition of biting and incivility. Not to mention blatantly unprofessional. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the protect. This article always gets hit hard during school vacations.-- Lepeu1999 ( talk) 14:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If the assertion of bad faith is warranted by relevant and strong evidence, I don't think it's an assumption. But I won't continue to revert - I don't have a strong opinion on the issue. Kalkin ( talk) 02:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits in Supreme Court of the United States on the judicial usurpation/activism section. Glad to know it was not just me. Magidin ( talk) 19:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The fun part is seeing how far that extends in other sections. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There's an IP editing Red Faction that I can't figure out. First he blanks, and then he spams. He has now added onto the article stuff that I can't honestly delete and call it vandalism. Can you check it out? - Warthog Demon 02:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's advertising, I've removed it and semiprotected. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So there *are* other admins watching the article! Good. Please let me know if I a) overstep or b) understep - I feel like I might be getting too close sometimes, and I feel like I'm too new with the mop to know what and when to clean up. Thanks! -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 06:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm only watching the article inasmuch as I am also watching the OTRS tickets related to the article. It's also a hectic week for me, but yes, trust that the article does have eyes on it. Feel free to ask for help if you have any questions about the map. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I was wondering, why did you remove my edit to Lawyer? 70.234.154.58 ( talk) 04:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edits were not properly sourced. You need to provide reliable sources for those kinds of edits. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have left a statement on ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#My_intentions_with_regards_to_this_editor. - Philippe | Talk 19:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Swatjester/archive14: I wish to thank you for your support in my unsuccessful bid at becoming an Assistant Coordinator for the Military history WikiProject. Rest assured that I will still be around, probably even more than before, and I have the utmost confidence in the abilities of the current and new coordinators. I might also mention that I am already planning on running again in August. As always, if you need anything, just get in touch. - MBK ₀₀₄ 21:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In your support vote you mentioned needing help with things related to firing arcs of WWII warships. Would you care to explain your thoughts a bit? I may be able to help or point you to the right person. - MBK ₀₀₄ 22:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Swatjester, all the best wishes for a speedy recovery! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 22:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes and general positive vibes!!! • VigilancePrime • • • 09:45 (UTC) 2 Mar '08

Thanks. I was completely unable to type for a few days, but I'm good for the immediately foreseeable future. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy to read that! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles ^Tally-ho! 17:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Take care of yourself. That flu shit is no paradise. :-P miranda 00:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a little worse than "that flu shit". i.e. at least the flu will go away eventually. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You did a great job cutting down the whole hoax. Here's another IP: 4.88.167.72 ( talk · contribs) that recently popped up. feel better, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

and another: 4.245.3.21 ( talk · contribs). -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday March 16th, Columbia University area Last: 1/13/2008 This box: view •  talk •

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates.
This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot ( talk) 03:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your message brings up some interesting points. In order to be of assistance, I would need access to your sources for this information. Also, I'm not sure I have anything on the firing arcs of warships except for the Iowa-class battleships. - MBK ₀₀₄ 01:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

They're scattered all over. I started with the Atlanta because her arcs are semi-famous. That's the assistance I'm looking for, digging it up. Much of it can be found from things like Janes, or other sources that list the armaments (i.e. 5x twin 5" guns etc.), something that also needs to be more substantially updated. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. I have a substantial library, but I lack many of the more high-end sources like Janes. I'm still compiling my list, but I can already tell you that I've focused on aircraft carriers and battleships, and have little to none relating to cruisers, destroyers, submarines, etc. My source list: User:MBK004/Library (Note: still incomplete). - MBK ₀₀₄ 02:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The February 2008 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 has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 08:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The "Steven Plaut" entry is out of date - please add the updated information from this http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8431B5B9-9777-4A3D-8218-94679BB9DCF9 --- Borisyy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borisyy ( talk • contribs) 14:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your help is needed in planning Wikipedia:Meetup/DC 4! Any comments or suggestions you have are greatly appreciated. The Placebo Effect ( talk) 19:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ref: the subject suggesting that I may be spewing pictures more or less at random which I may or may not have taken. You might be interested in looking at: Walker Colt and/or Colt Percussion Pocket Revolvers ( started that myself) and the several other articles "see also'ed" to the above. I regret having attracted the attention of above subject and hope not to interact with him again.-- Mcumpston ( talk) 22:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Since you took an active role in monitoring Sagbliss in the past, I think she's back again. Please take a look at the Talk Page for Get (Conflict). The legal threats are back again. Regards Bruno23 ( talk) 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I"ve reverted her comments and blocked her indefinitely. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Florida State University, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Florida State University. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! Addbot ( talk) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Jccort (
talk) 19:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you edited the article Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare recently and I am just letting you know that I plan on working on the article over the next few weeks in order to bring it up to Featured Article status. If you have time, please consider helping out with the article by improving the referencing, content, and other miscellaneous activities in order for the article to meet the standards set out at WP:WIAFA. Thanks for your time! Gary King ( talk) 05:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been working toward that goal for some time; however the article is not stable enough for it. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you outline typically what types of vandalism occurs on the article? Preferably on the article's talk page. For instance, do people add speculation, remove information, etc.? Maybe if we make the article comprehensive enough then people won't feel the need to add any new information, rather it is speculation or not. Gary King ( talk) 17:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout not properly removing the bit about the kid skipping school on RuneScape. Still a bit new here. Thanks for correcting my mistake -- Armanalp ( talk) 12:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Swatjester! We meet again. Regarding this post ( ∆ here), no. No one has brought up the subject before; you’re the first. I’ll be the first to agree that what I’ve got there is in a gray area. My user page recently used to be ginormous, with an added 400 kB of template-support sandbox for debugging a {{delmitnum}} template (and a magic word by the same name). I recently moved all that 400 kB of template-exercising material to a user sub-page ( User:Greg L/Delimitnum sandbox). Of course, once work on the templates is done, I’ll delete that sub-page.

Removing everything related to the SEALs on my main page would reduce the user page a paltry 116 kB. I read the policy on user pages. They aren’t supposed to be used as blogs. But then, the policy goes on to describe all the horse crap stuff that people put on blogs (“my favorite movies,” etc.) That portion of my user page is more of a general-interest piece, which describes what it’s like to be in BUD/S and what it takes to get back into it. That it uses my son’s experiences as the vehicle to accomplish that end is incidental. You used carefully considered diplo-speak when you wrote “It might be a good idea to take that section down.” Are you demanding I delete it all or suggesting it might be a wise move to do so? I know it’s well-received by the e-mails I receive from people interested in the SEALs. Greg L ( my talk) 02:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your flexibility on this. I very much appreciate it. I use the “SEALs” section as a tool to sharpen my writing and Wikipedia skills, which have improved enormously over the last year. While it is a bit tangential, I can assure you that Wikipedia benefits in many ways as a result. I’ll try to keep the flavor of it sharply focused on a Navy and SEAL-related bent. Cheers. Greg L ( my talk) 03:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Sometimes I am afraid I am over-sensitive. The Race and Intelligence article is obviously controversial and I have been highly critical of user:Jagz who I believe has been pushing for inclusion of a fringe, racialist (if not racist) POV in the article - this is just context, not the issue. The issue is, today he made this edit, creating a new section and providing no explanation or context: [4]. If it is directed at me, I wonder if it is anti-Semitic.

I may be overreacting - it may just be one of several disruptive edits he has made, which I should not take personally, and I have left a note at AN/I concerning disruptive edits. But the possible anti-Semitism nags at me. I know that in general you take these matters seriously and that in this particular case you have objectivity I lack and if you think I am overreacting, well, I would respect and value your judgement. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

...for confirming that the R6V2 talk page section removal was appropriate. xenocidic ( talk) 19:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry getting back to you late, my father had to take his laptop and i just got a new laptop but anyway, Its intentional, i was mixing up all the text and letters haha. Oh and sweet to c another speaker. БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 23:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, I just wanted to show my appreciation for your edits. You're on top on reverting in light of the recent plethora of vandalism on the article. Neil the Cellist ( talk) 23:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)