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. |
[1].
Copied, slightly modified to remove names (that would appear as personal attacks outside the ArbCom).
I'm sick and tired of the trash spewing, the animosity, this misquotations, and the bad faith being displayed in the Miskin arbitration case. I'm done with it. I'm removing it from my watch list, I'm not going to be checking it again, I want no further contact on my talk page about it from anyone except the clerks notifying me that it has either moved to voting or been closed. Congratulations. You've upset an admin and a longstanding editor to the point of apathy. If that's not disruptiveness, I don't know what is. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
And I apparently must remind you that my concerns regarding the display of these images have never been from the motive of "censorship." It's all about copyright, plain and simple. DagnyB 00:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
PS It's interesting that your prior note somehow neglected to mention that you protected the page only after restoring the image that is in dispute. DagnyB 00:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
For blocking me SwatJester, I have indeed learned from what has happened and It wont ever happen again. In my time of being blocked, I have read the Strongly suggested article, I have acted very innapropreatley and very ugly and I know my temper is something that needs work. I didnt mean to offend anyone on disturbe anyone on wikipedia or "Vandalize" anything when all I ment to do was to state my argument. Enjoy the rest of your evening.
-- Muriness 00:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Just dropping by to say "thank you" for supporting me in my recent my RfA. I passed the vote, and am now an admin. It will take me some getting used to with the new tools, but I thank you again for the trust. Have a good one, and, as always, happy editing! Jmlk 1 7 05:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Swatjester/archive10, and thank you so much for your support in my recent
RFA, which passed 59/0/0! I will try very hard to live up to your expectations – please let me know if I can help you in any way, but first take your cookie! Thanks again!
Krakatoa
Katie
00:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
NOTE: I'm not very creative, so I adopted this from RyanGerbil10 who swiped it from Misza13, from whom I have swiped many, many things. Chocolate chip cookies sold separately. Batteries not included. Offer not valid with other coupons or promotions. May contain peanuts, strawberries, or eggs. Keep out of the reach of small children, may present a choking hazard to children under the age of 3 and an electrical hazard to small farm animals. Do not take with alcohol or grapefruit juice. This notice has a blue background and may disappear into thin air. The recipient of this message, hereafter referred to as "Barnum's latest sucker", relinquishes all rights and abilities to file a lawsuit, to jump on a pogostick while standing on his head, and to leap out in front of moving trains. KrakatoaKatie, Jimbo Wales, and the states of Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Oklahoma are not liable for any lost or stolen items or damage from errant shopping carts or unlicensed drivers such as Paris Hilton. |
I have uploaded the correct logo under the "logo" linces and im wondering if you can check things over please? please reply to my tlk page
-- Muriness 02:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Were is the space were I explain why it should be there and is it alright if it stays untill I move the article to a main page? (please reply to my tlk page)
-- Muriness 03:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much, and how do I make my talk bace as nice as yours? (pliz reply to my talk page)
-- Muriness 00:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
lol What I meant was how did you create it (pliz reply to my userpage)
-- Muriness 19:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Ahh I see, do you have AIM or AOL?
-- Muriness 23:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I Asked because I am not always on here and I figured if I needed help with something you might be availbile
-- Muriness 03:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. can you, please, tell me wich is the OTRS ticket of the complaint? Tnx. it:user:DracoRoboter
Ok, thank you. :) I'm on OTRS (it) but I can't read legal.. ideed I was thinking about asking for access. I also though that could be a good idea organize a OTRS (virtual) international meeting, there are some issue: OTRS identification, legal threat and so on. Comments are welcome. -- DracoRoboter 16:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC) [Grazie mille. :) Sì faccio parte di Otrs, gestisco principalmente le code info-it e permission-it, ma non ho l'accesso a legal anche se, in effetti, stavo riflettendo se chiedere o meno l'accesso alla stessa. Fra l'altro sarebbe bene fare un meeting internazionale di otrs per discutere delle problematiche relative: la richiesta di identificazione e come rispondere le minacce legali in primo luogo. In merito a queste ultime sarebbe molto utile avere una policy ufficiale.] -- DracoRoboter 16:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you please tell COFS ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki) to stop posting to my talk page? I wish to avoid future incidents with this user, and do not appreciate the bad faith posts to my talk page. Thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 03:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC).
Smee's edit's have been a major concern for a long time. This should be seriously looked at. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane.
I'm curious to know what your concerns are. To reassure you I'm not here sticking up for anyone, and I don't have any issues or concerns with you myself. Smee like any of us makes errors now and then, but they haven't been anything like the issues to be found at Category:Banned Wikipedia users. What have I missed? Anynobody 06:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Boston Legal actually, but close. As for the complaints, unfortunately due to the confidentiality concerns inherent to the OTRS system, I cannot share with you the actual complaints themselves, other than making it known that they exist. If you would like independent verification of this, I can have another OTRS admin confirm it. As for how to improve your edits, that's beyond me as I'm not THAT familiar with your editing practices. However, I suggest that in the areas of cults, which seem to be a problem for you, and anything tangentially related, you limit yourself to 1 revert per day, or even 1 per week. That would significantly help you. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 15:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Those two seem like good steps to me. I'm sorry I can't give you more information, but if you follow those steps I think we'll all be fine. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
... for your response, above. I will begin taking a whole bunch of other pages off of my watchilst now, and begin to implement what I have stated, above. Thank you so much for your time. Smee 04:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC).
Thanks :p Good idea, I saw it in my IRC logs last night, checked it out this afternoon, and laughed my head off. Then felt very disappointed with myself for finding it that funny ;) Riana ⁂ 04:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The recent edits to St. Matthew's Churches upset me... I know you didn't make them all, but I was careful to make sure every line in that article was directly attributable to the sources cited. Now most of the content has been bushwhacked on demand apparently. I'd appreciate it if the content could be restored. -- W.marsh 14:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I moved four AfD listings you recently filed to the top of the AfD log list. Please list new entries at the top (I think this changed recently). Cheers! Flyguy649 talk contribs 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I simply couldn't figure out how to nominate them for deletion--they all need deleted. Please repost. Thanks. KP Botany 21:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. When closing the RfA, I took a detailed look at the reasons given both for supporting and opposing. While a small number of opposes mention IRC, only #3 and #5 cite it as a major reason for their opposition. I chose not to entirely disregard these opposes, but even if I had done so, this would not have changed my decision that consensus could not be demonstrated to make AKMask an administrator. The other issues you raise - incivility and opposing per the arguments of other users - can be problematic, but are not reasons to disregard a comment. I have given a fuller reasoning at WT:RFA. AKMask is welcome to restand in the future, and provided their contributions do not raise any new concerns, I suspect that a clear consensus to make them an administrator will be reached then. Warofdreams talk 01:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I reverted this. Might want to have a talk with that user. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 01:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You recently deleted a comment I made on a talk page. I don't mind as the comment was directed to another user and he got the message, but I was wondering what your note means. Thanks. LCP 23:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) Which comment would that be? I didn't notice a removal of any of my comments. KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't you think that an indefinite block by Deskana, someone who broke a rule of not blocking someone over another dispute when involved in one already (i.e. he was involved in a content dispute and also blocked based on what he considered as 3R, which violates the admin rule), is just a tad excessive, when blocks are preventative not punative, and that person violated IP by moving stuff against someone's will and merged the history without permission of a personal page with a main wiki page? Or do you like admin who abuse their power, support people who are making it obvious that their intent is only to harm others (notice how those people who were so active on the pages trying to help haven't touched the pages one bit) and so on? I think enough rules have been broken by them, and a block was given to the person who actually broke no rule. Funny how that works.
Hi! You have endorsed one of the candidates in the current board elections. However, you have not provided a link from your local project (this one) to your user page on Meta, so we have no way of confirming that you are the same person. Please provide a link to Meta from your user page or user talk page to Meta, then reinstate your endorsement, which I struck and indented. If you like to have your user page in a certain way, you can do it in a diff, like http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User%3AJon_Harald_S%C3%B8by&diff=138817866&oldid=136122013 this], but then you have to provide the link to the diff for us. Thank you for your cooperation! Jon Harald Søby 19:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, user Shadyaftrmathgunit keeps trying to add the non-notable members of the record lable to the article. I know you used to revert that, and since you are and administrator, you must be right, so I am trying to do what you used to do. I already told him why I revert his edits and he keeps doing it, can you have a chat with him on his talk page and tell him that it is not allowed, he might listen to an administrator more than he would listen to me. Thank you. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 19:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You should have received the information via email now. -- Michael Snow 00:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey Swatjester, just curious if you could disclose anything in regards to the complaint on New York International Independent Film and Video Festival. Just wanted to know what can/can't be included in the article based on the OTRS ticket. I don't know if it's sensitive material and you can't disclose it on here or what, but could you please give a bit of clue so people at the article know the limits on this article. I'm not a big fan of the section one way or another, but some users feel strongly it should stay and some users don't which has led to revert wars without discussion. Knowing the basis of the complaint would help alleviate some of this I think. Thanks, Metros 00:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I had left my user page on Wikipedia as it was on May 12, 2007. I find out almost a month later following an off-Wikipedia source, thet my user page was vandalized.
I do belive and have CONFIRMATION that the vandals (cyberbullies) known as users Yonathan, in which I belive to be a man named Jonathan from another site called TV News Talk, and Marcus TVNT, who claims to work in that site's legal department and has made a legal threat against me, have vandalized my user page, and I have printed off the evidence in which most of the vandalized page has been since been proven false proving them wrong, as I belive that they are in my trap, and felt I needed to contact them on their user page, pursuant to Wikipedia policy.
So with that in mind, I would appreciate if I get to the bottom of this dispute that will eventually end at Wikipedia, as long as this dispute has been met to my standards.
Sincerely, ( Aeverine Frathleen Nieves 08:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC))
PS: I have since fixed my user page (in which the vandalism was deleted) probably up to Wikipedia standards.
I've nominated User:Swatjester/twinkletest2, a page you created, for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Swatjester/twinkletest2 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Swatjester/twinkletest2 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 15:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You blanked lava lamp. I dont care what your reasoning is, because this is grossly detrimental to the aim of the wikipedia project, and would ask you to immediately return to its previous state. Philc 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I have blanked it due to a legal complaint regarding the copyright. As is standard with such things, the process is to blank or stub and protect it pending resolution. Your demanding tone is not welcome here, please assume good faith (AGF). The page will come back when the dispute is resolved. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you let me know what the problem was? 2007052310014607 seems to be in Legal and I can't see it. Guy ( Help!) 13:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Could you please look at the latest contributions from Mark Thomas at my RfC and related matters. He appears to have completely ignored your previous "final" warning and continues his attacks on me, now attacking me at User talk:Gold heart because she put some positive comments about me on the RfC. Would you please give Mark an unambiguous warning to leave me alone? He also 1) claims that I can't copy material regarding me from his talkpage - is that true?? and 2) deleted separate comments I made from the RfC talkpage. Frankly, if he is allowed to keep attacking me on all fronts like that I will lose my cool and say something silly. Which is probably the game plan. Regards( Sarah777 21:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC))
Thanks! I'm starting to realise how the guys in the Alamo felt!! ( Sarah777 22:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC))
Can I find out my IP address?
-- Muriness 03:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Or visit: http://www.whatismyip.com Lsi john 12:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
While I do not support in any way, shape or form his last comment, and I've asked him to take off for a day or two until his stress level drops, I can see where he's coming from. The admin who declined his unblock is currently was in a discussion elsewhere, and there seems to be a double standard where his viewpoints can be called "terroristic" (Northern Ireland issues) etcetera, and they only get warnings (I'm talking about that whole group, I've seen it about 10 times) but when he calls someone a vandal for removing properly sourced, notable information, he gets blocked. Sure, he violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but there HAS to be a limit to which he can be expected to deal with folks attacking him, and not attacking back. SirFozzie 17:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've only just seen this. Please note for the record that the block was not for a single event, but the culmination of several such. He could have been blocked earlier, but in view of his previous good record, I engaged in dialogue requesting a cessation of this behaviour, then issued a detailed final warning. Although he acknowledged the points made, the behaviour persisted and there was no indication it was likely to stop. Please note also that several users "on the other side" have not just been warned, but have also been blocked for their personal attacks - one user three times. There is no "double standard": that allegation is quite unfounded. Tyrenius 20:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you have time to take a look at the latest edits by User:Domer48 at Great Irish Famine - apart from edit warring, and doing a 3RR there, he also accuses me of "bad faith edits" in his comments, and when I post warnings and requests for apologies correctly to his talk page, he reposts them to the main talk page for the article, something Sarah777 did yesterday and which you have stated was OK but at least appears to be bad manners. This is very incivil - I am not bad faith editing, I am trying to make sense of a whole series of edits under the title "suggestions of genocide" when there is in fact no such suggestion. Can I ask you to take some action if justified? Thanks for your help. MarkThomas 19:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
First, here's your banner for WP:MILHIST.
Second, since my contributions are CC-BY-SA, I would highly appreciate that you cite me for the purpose of you copying the talk page layout. I have spent, literally, many hours in creating this layout, and would highly appreciate if you credit me. Thanks. Miranda 15:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CharlotteWebb/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 23:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Just noticed your signature...I'm a big fan of Boston Legal too. When I read about your military service and your budding legal career I couldn't help but make the connection. 67.86.86.217 01:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
What is the status of the complaint. Could you please elaborate and mention it on the Talk:Loose Change (2007 film). Thanks. - Roy Boy 800 23:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Ha! Couldn't help but notice :) - Alison ☺ 01:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Bits of an iPhone? ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It's day 11 of OTRS limbo for this poor article... just in case you forgot. -- W.marsh 02:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see an OTRS ticket #2007052310014607. Search-by-ticket-number turns up nothing. What's the deal? Raul654 04:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dan,
Just some thoughts on what you told the NYT reporter about Wikinews. Did you really suggest that Wikinews is a place for news that slips off WP's radar? Maybe you should take some time getting to now other projects outside enwiki before suggesting something like that to a journalist -no offence. It's obvious to me that with 6.8 million users versus 26.000, WP's radar is a lot bigger. Not to mention the fact that your comment really sounds like you think Wikinews is inferior.
Wikinews is the answer when it comes to writing neutral, user-generated news in the style of a newspaper instead of an encyclopaedia. The project has been hindered in it's growth by enwiki and things like Portal:Current events. We should be working together you know. I've seen few people taking the time getting to know any other place than their own project: I invite you to expand your horizon.
-- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 20:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Steven seems to have some concerns about interaction between sister projects, which the NYT article did discuss. But, Swatjester, I came here to say that you did very well in the interview. You're basically half of the article! Your eloquence and rationality make reassuring the fact that you're an admin. And I can only say "um" and "like" and "sorta" :) Gracenotes T § 00:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:OTRS#OTRS protection message needs link to this page. — Keenan Pepper 17:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the status on Lava lamp? This is probably a relatively high traffic article, and having it protected is severely disruptive. How much progress has been made to resolving the "Lava Motion Lamp" issue? In this case I actually think we should just ignore Lava world, since they could not possibly win a case over this, and not having the article is worse then the (I presume) threat of legal action. Prodego talk 18:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Dose this type of comment look familiar [5]. Regards -- Domer48 19:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. What's are the details on the block of User:71.112.115.55 ("per DavidShankbone evidence")? -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
>Treat the admins with deference and respect. What's this all about? A community of equals where some people are more equal than others?
>Just don't mess with it: Wikipedia is not THAT important that your information NEEDS to be there Right Now Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because the joy of editing is that, although it should be aimed for, perfection is not required. And do not worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. But remember — whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity. DDD DDD 02:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if you could unprotect this page, or at least allow registered users to edit it. It has been protected for about a month, and I believe the OTRS issue has been resolved. Thanks. Ward3001 21:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to your comments at the page. I would respectfully ask you review them, and if you still believe I am invloved in an edit war provide the diff from the page where I entered the text prior to the alleged (by me) sock becoming involved. Pedro | Chat 20:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
How do I make a wikipedia robot?
-- Muriness 02:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI, [6]. Prodego talk 21:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Swatjester, for participating in
my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3). |
What happened here? You reverted the addition of the AfD header on the article a minute after adding it...? Was this article ever added to the AfD log?
Just curious--seems an oddity. — Scien tizzle 23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd ask Doc Glasgow, but he's been gone for a month; fortunately you're still here. It looks like Charlotte Lucy's parents have a web page dedicated to telling her story and publicizing her case, http://www.babycharlotte.co.nz/ , so it doesn't look like they are worried about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons issues. Would you be OK with undeleting our article, Charlotte Cleverley-Bisman? If you then have other concerns, we could then take it to an Articles for deletion discussion, but it doesn't look that its mere existence would be a blot on Charlotte's life. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
i didnt make threats i informed him i he was being disruptive and i never once made a threat. BlueShrek 18:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for sticking up for me on BlueShrek's page. Had I seriously known I brok the rules by adding on to a page and adding honest facts, that was sarcasm by the way, then I certaily wouldb't have done anything.
Just a heads up on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Battlefield 1942 mods (5th nomination. Bfelite 23:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I recently, about three days ago, re wrote the entire article for Dookie, and obtained a GA the next day. Now I want to make it good enough for a FA status, but I need some help. One of my mates says he has a lot of sources and junk to help, but I need a peer review too. So, I was wondering, may you peer review the album? I requested one already, but nobody seems to want to. Thanks! Xihix 21:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
A little late (didn't see it until today), but I wanted to say that you came off pretty well in your interview with the NYT. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 18:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
THe anonymous user who edited the McDuff article erroneously created a red link in the article, when there wasn't one. Perhaps, the person didn't intentionally mean to do that but they did. And I did ask them to please not do that, which I believe is civil. I think you are just a friend of Squeakbox, and you're here to support him since I'm in a dispute with him. I did not act uncivil to this anonymous IP Fighting for Justice 06:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
WARNING: Out-of-context nonsensical rant ahead. Proceed at own peril.
Boomeranging?! If Wikipedia actually rendered arrowheads (yes, there was meant to be an arrow), I wouldn't be in this situation. Next time, I will draw them on manually so as to avoid embarrassment. (Rant ends here) Huffiness aside, it's quite a good use for quite a good picture. (Especially as it's mine) :-) Carrot Man 08:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Fighting for Justice, whom you blocked, has posted an unblock request. It would probably be good if you commented on the request on his talkpage, for the use of the reviewing admin. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Noting your comment on ANI, the full back-story is here Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Attachment_Therapy/Evidence#Basis_of_block if interested. Just figuredit'd reassure you to know that DPeterson's block was in fact discussed with two arbcom clerks in the presence of a large number of sysops beforehand, since DP (a proven POV war sockmaster facing probable long term ban at arbcom) has a distasteful habit of untruthfulness, and not much compunction at arguing by fabrication and smear. FT2 ( Talk | email) 13:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the above link. Miskin ( talk · contribs) is cautioned to gain a consensus on article talk pages before making further edits if his first edits are reverted. Swatjester ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is advised to take into account the length of time between previous blocks when blocking users, and to treat all editors violating the three-revert rule fairly. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 13:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
A lil' something for the reflexes ;) Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 01:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
What part of the Village Pump should I go to for account problems? I think there's something funny happening with it. - WarthogDemon 22:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
How do I change my articles name?
-- Muriness 04:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Swatjester,
I want some dialog with you regarding your recent messages and deletions of things I've posted.
I don't know how to contact you, apart from this talk page, so here I go:
Regarding 3RR block request:
You said: Please note that reversions of simple vandalism are exempted from the 3RR, and using diffs with multiple intermediate revisions to attempt to hide this fact is disruptive.
I understand the vandalism bit. I did not notice that there was vandalism on the page that caused the revert, but I understand that now. Your other comment about "multiple intermediate revisions" I don't understand, and I'm asking just so that I will understand this rule in future. It was not a deliberate attempt at being "disruptive". Does the 3RR rule only apply to consecutive edits? I thought it was for any Reverts in a 24 hour period.
Re: Walkleys (the incident where journalists attack each other:
I was a bit surprised that it was deleted. Before posting the image, I had checked other Wiki articles to see how they handled copyright images of famous events. I used the Janet Jackson incident as a template, as it is in some ways similar. On the Janet Jackson image, there were similar reasons given as to justify why it could be used in Wikipedia.
Are there no reasons to ever justify the use of a copyright image?
thanks Pigmypossum 00:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
"You have been blocked for 1 week for disruption and making threats to continue that disruption, on the FOX talk page. Wikipedia is not a battleground for your fight against Fox news. If you cannot behave appropriately on the project your editing privileges will be revoked. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)"
I'm sorry but did you read the whole thing? I'm not against fox news in fact in this situation i was for getting rid of something false that was detrimental to their image. if you thought i was making threats you obviously read something other than what I wrote. if you did your job more thoroughly you might have noticed i only became angry because my talk posts were deleted repeatedly by someone who disagreed with me. also if you take another look at the discussion you will find my position vindicated by another user, on the sheer bases of being correct. I think you should reread my posts and apologize. The point I was making (which I am amazed both you and blaxthos missed[blaxthos who erased my talk posts]) was that simply that just because you can cite a source dosent make that source true, unbiased, or respectable. Here is my last post again just so we are clear that i wasnt making threats.
"Now thats just being childish and you know it. First you attempted to censor me by removing my talk posts and when I attempt to make a point you accuse me of terrorist threats! Read the Koran while a beautiful and poetic book is full of dark age morality (hence the whores comment). look up "America" and "burn" on google. While depressing it does make my case, souces could be cited. By ANI what do you mean?Towers84 18:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fox_News_Channel_controversies#dont_remove_my_talk_posts_again.21
please reread the thread. I am sorry for the tone but being repeatedly silenced by blaxthos and then blocked without merit has truly frustrated me. all I wanted was something biased removed from a page. I'm not against fox news, nor am I for them I just wanted wikipedia to be what its supposedly meant to be FAIR, ACCURATE, UNBIASED. if you read all this(and I hope you did) thank you for your time. towers84 72.189.48.223 04:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this is so unclear. I said "now I'm off to the spain article to edit that rightfully belongs to the jihad BECAUSE I CAN CITE A SOURCE!". first, jihad translates to struggle. SO I guess you have implied that I've threatened to struggle? second your right I should have had quotation marks to show I was quoting, that these are not things I've thought to say. so you have banned me of your own accord because I have quoted things without quotation marks? or because I threatened to write something on another page using a biased source? It's called hyperbole. perhaps in bad taste. but its a way of making a point the part of the article in dispute blaxthos said had a source I was explaining in ways I thought he and you could understand that not all sources are created equal. Perhaps if I had said "for the mujahideen(literally "strugglers")" it would have been clearer. Now I would be happy to let this drop if you can show me where I threatened to do anything but edit a page using a biased source. for more information you can go to google and type in "Spain belongs to Islam". Once again IF you have actually read all this t hank-you, this was obviously some misunderstanding on your part and I hope I have enlightened you. the misinterpreting of Arabic words and phrases is a huge problem in the English speaking world. The media as a whole, both right and left commonly mistake "jihad" for holy war. perpetuating Ignorance. towers84 72.189.48.223 12:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
my ONLY COMPLAINT was the lack of reliable sources on that section of the article and the glaring bias of the "facts" presented. I only used hyperbole on the talk page, if you could point out the relevant rules that say hyperbole is not to be used on the talk page I will gladly shut up. I don't know how I got on your bad side. why was I banned? I have made it clear that no threat was made. It should be obvious I had no grudge on anyone. shouldn't there be two sides to a battleground? who was I battling. What did I do so wrong to warrant a block? was I nasty? Did i swear? Did I make personal Insults? I'm so frustrated and I'm tired of being bullied. 72.189.48.223 18:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? What I restored was a template with a link to the concesus that decided what would happen to the article. Isn't that how it's supposed to be? -- Thus Spake Anittas 11:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
10:20, 3 August 2007 . . Anittas (trolling restored.) 09:38, 3 August 2007 . . 86.151.127.32 (remove troling) 06:32, 3 August 2007 . . Anittas (rv, so what if they're defamatory?) 02:15, 3 August 2007 . . 68.91.89.209 (Blanked due to BLP violation. Those AfDs are full of defamatory statements. -- Daniel Brandt) 16:24, 1 August 2007 . . Bryan Derksen (article deletion discussion history)
"So what if they're defamatory" s a completely unacceptable response, as is "trolling restored".
⇒
SWATJester
Denny Crane.
16:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, -- El on ka 06:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I responded on my talk page, but to summarise here, I got clerks confused with people with actual checkuser access, after a quick scan of the popup message on his userpage. -- Dreaded Walrus t c 15:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll try and deal with this along with you. Makes sense to have a group of people rather than one dealing with a contentious issue like this.
I already warned DivaDome about the conflict of interest policy. -- SunStar Net talk 17:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
You've done well to get them all blocked. -- SunStar Net talk 17:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, do you really have all of the firearms you list on your user page? I'm wicked jealous. I've got a cheap 20-gague shotgun and a 1903A3 military rifle from my grandfather but that's about it. I was in the market for a 9mm - do you have any suggestions for someone on a limited budget? Thanks and sorry for the non-Wikipedia related interruption... — Wknight94 ( talk) 17:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Collecting is all about finding the deals. For example, if you can't get 700 bucks to buy an AR-15, how about spending 200-300 on the lower reciever, and then another 200-300 on the upper? You can do it at separate times, and build a supply of interchangeable parts (i.e. one lower, but 3 or 4 uppers) for different situations, and you don't have to save as much each time. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed you've been nominating some pages of this nature lately for deletion, which I consider a valid effort, though it has lead to some resistance. I think it might be more appropriate to try an RFC though, or the VP to get more folks involved. FrozenPurpleCube 18:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Swatjester:
I have observed the speedy deletion of the Sarimanok images. However, I believe a brief message on my talk page was appropriate because I am in touch with the images contributor. Permission was obtained from him by me as a volunteer-only editor. It was not spam as you thought it was. But wikimediapermissions just have some technicality issue (I have copy of the email with me). So I am contacting the contributor again about the issue. Is this how you operate? Pardon if I had to ask. But courtesy is in order, I believe. Now, once the issue is solved, I will have to re-upload the image and re-do the whole thing. - Dragonbite 06:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The best step is to wait until OTRS gets the permissions received from the copyright holder. Because GFDL is a free license and essentially irrevocable, we need to be very sure that he has expressly agreed to license his images under that. As such, wait till we get the permissions for it, before uploading, and before adding it into the article as well. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 14:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
What happened was that someone decided this was a case for what is called speedy deletion when only three days had elapsed since nomination, only six people had commented, not one of them among those who were knowledgeable about or interested in the subject matter, and there was disagreement about whether to keep the article, and it is routine practice to notify those at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics that the discussion is going on, and that had not been done. A "speedy" in such a case is clearly improper. Michael Hardy 20:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw you removed the redirect of page Virginia A. Boone/Highland Oaks Elementary School because the target page has been deleted. In this case, since there is no interesting history in the article, it is probably better to directly nominate the redirect for speedy deletion (CSD R1), for example using the template {{ db-redirnone}}. Otherwise, the leftovers of the redirect make for a confusing article which is harder to find for cleanup. If you don't nominate it for SD, it is probably better to leave the non-existent redirect so that the article can be found through Special:BrokenRedirects. Thanks, Schutz 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
What is the point of the note you added to the top of that deletion review? I can't imagine why we need it, since surely no one would ever do something like vote on a deletion review without reading the article. Picaroon (t) 05:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
don't talk with someone else on my talk page. Never. Do you understand? Jade1984 08:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
(dates removed so it won't autoarchive) The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kyriakos
Candidates:
Carom:voting for. Cla68:no opinion yet. Dreamafter:voting against. Eurocopter tigre:voting against tentatively, further review. Kirill Lokshin: voting for. Kyriakos:voting for. LordAmeth: no opinion. Mohammed Adil: voting against. Politics rule:voting against. Roger Davies:voting for. TomStar81:voting for. TheFEARgod:voting against. Woodym555:voting for. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 14:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{ inactive}} and/or {{ historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to remove a comment I left where I commended Ted Frank on his editing that I don't think applies anymore, and he keeps re-adding it to is talk page. Can you please assist in this baby matter, and confirm to Ted that 1. he doesn't rule supreme over his discussion page; and 2. that I have a right to remove a comment I left, that now misrepresents me? Thank you. He was warned about behaving that way, removed the warning, left the comment. -- David Shankbone 00:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)