User talk:Swarm

This user replies where s/he likes, and is inconsistent in that respect.	This user is fallible and encourages other admins to be bold in reverting their admin actions.	~~~~Swarm signs their posts and thinks you should too!

Swarm
Home —— Talk —— Email —— Contribs —— Awards —— Dash

Hello

Hello. Do you mind taking a look at this? I don't feel like explains in great detail despite it already being done on the article itself. I would prefer to sleep. AcidSnow (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Sorry, just now got around to it. Swarm... ^—X— 17:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry and thank you! AcidSnow (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User accusing me of being a sock puppet of HGA

Hi, It appears that user talk:64.134.157.208 has accused me of being the "sock puppet" of user talk:Hga, which is not the case. I have asked him to cease but he has now spread this to the discussion page for the AfD for Hoplophobia. He is falsely accusing me of this activity and trying to sway opinion on the discussion page. I removed the accusation from the AfD page and he has put it back. Is there anything that can be done to stop this?99.242.102.111 (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears IP 99 is canvassing here. Hga and 99 are both including material from fringe blogs which in no way meet Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources and they were recently warned of that and they deleted the warnings and reinserted the crappy sources and material. Hga has been editing (owning) the article for years. They have had plenty of time to find reliable sources and clearly have not done that so their terribly sourced material should be deleted IAW policy. They should find a source that meets the reliable source guidelines before reinserting material about a person who died in the last 10 years. Hga appear to be asking for a check user on the ANI. It would be very helpful but in no way give them the right to keep putting crap in articles. Thanks 64.134.157.208 (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is the crap they both keep adding. [1] Not something that is even remotely acceptable. They have demonstrated long term tendentious edit warring in the articles history. 64.134.157.208 (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, here's something I can speak definitively about, the edit reference to an issue of Cooper's Commentaries where he reiterated his rules of gun safety, life and death important since they are generally considered to be the best. However people were modifying them, and after some searching I realized those who weren't "improving" them were using corrupt texts. So I found the most recent direct quote of Coopers, put that text in there, and made a link to the DVC site (if I remember correctly), one of the many sub rosa copies of the Commentaries on the net. That citation seems to have been changed into two different onee, but, as I've said on the talk page and the ANI section, I have the authorized paper copies of Commentaries on order, and I will in due course be updating all references to the Commentaries to these 3 bound volumes. Hga (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Fibrowarrior

Regardless of the merits of the unblock request and your accept, courtesy and policy "require" that you check with the blocking administrator before accepting the request.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. Accepting unblock requests isn't something I commonly do. I've brushed up on the unblocking policy and will be sure to remember this in the future. Thanks for the reminder, it only helps me improve! Swarm... ^—X— 01:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI regarding Joseph Prasad

Just so you know, blocked editor User:Joseph Prasad is trying to recruit at least one other editor to proxy/meatpuppet for him at the Seth MacFarlane talk page discussion where he was edit warring (see here: [2]). I tried to explain to him (firmly) that such a practice is verboten, and add some advice regarding his block (see all the comments from me and him here [3]), but he wouldn't hear of it and deleted the comments as "harassing". Maybe you will see a need to let him know that such behavior (recruiting meat puppets) is against policy? Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

PNAC

Kindly note the repeated insertion of BLP violations at Project for the new American Century

[4] et seq [5] et seq (new editor "Dbdb" suddenly appearing making same edits as Ubikwit in the past) [6] (many edits includingBLP violations following) [7] third Ubikwit revert within less than 24 hours.

In describing the Bush's primary advisors, including prominent PNAC members Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Armitage, scholar Guy Roberts has noted that Colin Powell was the only to have military experience, and presents a passage in which PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan attempts to differentiate between the policy positions of Powell and those of the neoconservatives in which Kagan characterizes Powell's approach as ruling out "almost every conceivable post-Cold War intervention".

Some scholars have drawn attention to the influence of Albert Wohlstetter on the intellectual origins of PNAC. Alastair Finlan indicates that Wolfowitz had been a graduate student of Wohlstetter's, and states

Wolfowitz along with other former proteges of Wohlstetter such as Richard Perle, for instance, would create a lobby group called "The New American Century" (PNAC), which espoused a neoconservative vision of the future.

In discussing the PNAC report Rebuilding America's Defenses (2000), Neil MacKay, investigations editor for the Scottish Sunday Herald, quoted Tam Dalyell: "'This is garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks -- men who have never seen the horror of war but are in love with the idea of war. Men like Cheney, who were draft-dodgers in the Vietnam war. These are the thought processes of fanaticist Americans who want to control the world.'"

Sources which are not on point for PNAC, or which specifically violate BLP do not belong in the article - and I am exceedingly disappointed that I am now unable to actually remove the damn accusations of living persons being "draft dodgers" from an article.

I suggest you read the reverts and insertion of BLP violations and material which is not directly related to PNAC but SYNTH connections of "the source says this about this person as an individual, so we can extend the argument to all of PNAC" etc. And note that the consensus on the article talk page was against such inclusion - especially since sources did not link PNAC as a group to having draft-dodgers be key players. Cheers. and try to do the right thing please! Collect (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)