User talk:SWik78

No problem

My first instance of a double redirect (Serb Chetniks Rescue U.S. Pilots during WW II was redirecting to Serb Chetniks Rescue U.S. Pilots during World War II); just made both pages redirect to Operation Halyard and that fixed it. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 05:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Contempt toward officials‎

Hey there.

Thanks for looking out for the 'pedia, but I'm affraid Contempt toward officials‎ isn't elegible for speedy deletion (at least not under the G12 (copyvio) criterion): the source of the text is in the public domain because it is a work of the United States government. — Coren ^(talk) 22:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The article itself relly contains nothing more than quotations. Whatever it is that it talks about, it's not in any kind of context. Do you think it would qualify under patent nonsense ("no meaningful content") or is it even worth nominating for deletion? Maybe it should just be tagged as needing improvement? SWik78 01:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it can be speedied under any of the criteria, but you might propose it for deletion. A simple {{subst:prod|Article contains nothing but a quotation from the uniform military code}} or something like that might do the trick. Prod-ed articles are deleted after some period of time without having to go through the hassle of an AfD, unless someone comes up to the bad to salvage it. — Coren ^(talk) 16:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Alan Veingrad

Is it necessary to quote the text from the reference in the article itself? Isn't that the purpose of the reference - to provide text in support of a particular claim madein the article? SWik78 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• The text has been provided to demonstrate what portion of the reference supports the claim made in the article. While I usually don't use the Template:Cite news, the "quote" parameter is intended to provide a "Relevant quotation". This format is regularly used in scholarly books and other works. While I will frequently include such quotes within a references, and agree that it is not "necessary", there is no reason to remove it where used. Alansohn 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You had added "Also, the article itself makes no mention of what Shlomo means." The article at this point included a statement that "He now uses his Hebrew first name, 'Shlomo' (which means 'King Solomon')..." With a wikilink to Shlomo, anyone who wants to learn more about the name has the information available there. Furthermore, as indicated "Shlomo" does not *mean* "King Solomon", though it is the same Hebrew name. Alansohn 20:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Elias Chacour

Thanks for your contribution to the article. The edits you reverted, while made in good faith by some editor, were POV and full of weasel words like "very controversial" and "some ...". However, they did contain some useful information. I tried to salvage what I could; please let me know what you think. Cheers, Majoreditor 18:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

While the article itself contains no more of those weasel words, I still don't think that the reference provided [1] qualifies as NPOV. The source text contained a summary of Chacour's speech in which the following statements were made regarding issues Chacour didn't speak about:

• ...and how many Palestinians who "just want to return to their land" did not own the land but were instead tenants, often victimized by their own people.

The quote "just want to return to their land" is by Chacour and it seems to be used in a somewhat sarcastic sense. At the end of that sentence, the article offers a link to another article on the same website titled Whose Land Is It? [2]to offer an insight into the Israel-Palestine land dispute, which is one of the most hotly contested political and religious disputes in the last 60 years of history. That article, after explaining that Arafat refused Barak's offer in 2000, makes this overly simplified statement:

• Apparently, the Palestinian leadership sought no fair two-state solution. They wanted everything—with no Israel at all.

Another statement in referenced text, again referring to what was not said in his speech, says:

• Nor did he give any credence to the need today for a security barrier to protect Israelis from random and horrific terrorist attacks, and how that barrier has vastly reduced both Israeli and Palestinian deaths.

I just don't believe that this article is neutral enough to be given any weight as a useful reference. I won't remove it but I don't think it should stay. SWik78 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, SWik. I agree that one online article on a low-traffic website isn't enough to qualify Chacour as a "controversial figure." For that matter, Chacour is one of the least controversial Middle Eastern figures, given his role as a peacemaker and bridge-builder. Majoreditor 18:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

64.148.190.131 (talk · contribs)

I dunno, how long do you think the block should be? It's a school IP, so it's probably a lot of kids rather than one really persistent one. I hate to inflict collateral damage with long blocks, because it could prevent new users from getting involved. I generally just escalate slightly from the length of the last block. Peace, delldot talk 21:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the last edit to Ethiopia was pretty awful. And the Rose Hill, Kansas thing is pretty compelling. But still, since it's a school IP, the fact that they're always coming back could be that a lot of kids are constantly trying to edit, and there could be good editors there too. How about this: I'll leave myself a note in my to do list to check their contribs after this block is up. If they're vandalizing again, I'll block again, and if it's a similar pattern, it'll be a longer block. Your note on my talk page will remind me to check on them from time to time after that, too. Peace, indeed! delldot talk 22:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

welcome tagging

Hi, SWik. I just noticed you used a {{welcome}} tag on an annons page. I recently found out there is also an {{ipwelcome}}, that also notes that it might be a good idea to make an account. It might be good to switch to that one for annons. Martijn Hoekstra 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Massad

Hello SWik78. Thanks for the message. It was my intention to simply restore my own edits which I believed had been caught up in what falls just short of an edit war. It wasn't my intention to favor either side. In fact, you'll see that I maintained all the deletions to the "Controversial views" section (and the removal of the "Accusations of Anti-Semitism and Denials" header). The two edits by Morningside Clio were simply present in my original edit, and so were restored with all the rest. That said, I'm not sold on their inclusion (and I'd considered requesting a citation for "born in Jordan of Christian parents"). Seems a flaw to have a biographical article in which the subject's birthplace is not mentioned, but given the history of this article it would seem a reliable source is needed. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Inapropriate content

I sent User talk:Mattj5095 a message. If he continues recreating those pages, he'll be blocked. Thanks. Spellcast (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Academy and Copyright

Hey there.

Actually, an article is eligible for G12 if it's an improper copy independently of other factors. In that particular case, your assessment is perfectly correct— It's a copyright violation and should be speedily deleted. It might also be deleted as advertisement (G11) but the copyright violation is the most important of the two.

The last element in the G12 test (assertion of free use / public domain / etc) is just that: the article isn't eligible for speedy deletion if it asserts that the copy is proper. For instance, a statement stating:

Parts of this article taken from http://www.example.org/foo/bar with permission

in the article is such an assertion, so the article could not be speedily deleted (but that doesn't mean that the assertion is correct, or sufficient— only that the article needs to be checked further and possibly sent to WP:CP).

Hope that helps. — Coren ^(talk) 14:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Gisele Bündchen Stock Index

I'll write more about it. Thanks for contacting! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.157.48.2 (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

66.76.67.66 (talk · contribs)

Hi!

I hope you don't mind but I deleted a vandalism warning you left on this user's page for unconstructive edits he made to Kenny Chesney. The reason I deleted them is because the user made those edits way back on November 5 and it kind of defeats the purpose warning him about it now. But rest assured, I'm keeping an eye on him because he has made an edit or two today that are can't really be classified as constructive. Thanks for looking out for 'pedia!

Peace! SWik78 (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You should warn anonymous users on all edits that they have made that can be reasonably ascribed to the same person or group of people. I disagree that 5th november is too long ago. You might have a point if the user had vandalised a few months ago, because then it could well have been a different person. Only if the user has made positive edits or if the identity cannot be guaranteed should vandalisations be ignored. It's about whether the particular address is positive or negative to the wikipedia or not.WolfKeeper (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Response by AWDRacer

Hey Swik78!

Thanks for leaving a message. I'm sorry I am replying to you so late because I didn't log into Wikipedia after my hopeless efforts to remove that page lol. Added to that, I don't usually get messages haha. Anyway, I tried to do everything that was legal within Wikipedia because the guy either doesn't seem to get it or he's just doing it over and over and over again regardless of what happens. That being said, I think you're right - I might have put something on the wrong page. Oh well, I'll just leave it there... hahaha. I don't have any ethnic connection to the poet; I only ran into that page accidentally when I was looking up information on History about the leader at that time period who had a similar name. Do you think we should nominate it again? Perhaps we should let the moderators know?

Thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by AWDRacer (talk • contribs) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

Thanks for the note. I have gone ahead and lengthened the block to 72 hours. Since the IP is shared, I am hesitant to go too long--it would do no good since the user will switch IPs and the block will only impact someone else (blocks are always intended as a protective, not punitive measure). I didn't see evidence of useful contributions from the IP, so hopefully any impact will be minimal. Thanks again, and let me know if you have any other concerns. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking over the users you listed, I think you're correct that they are all vandalism-only accounts. I have blocked all of them as such. Thanks and keep up the great work. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Windsor redirect

Definitely a reason for it to be deleted, I'd say, but, as you realized, not speedy. You can add it to Redirects for Discussion. нмŵוτнτ 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Facebook valuation

If you do the math between what Microsoft invested in Facebook and the % stake in the company it was given, it now means that Facebook is worth well over $15 billion. 204.246.237.129 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.237.129 (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Christy Marks

An article that you have been involved in editing, Christy Marks, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christy Marks. Thank you.

This is a trial of the AfD notification bot. If you found this message helpful, annoying or have anything else to say about it please leave a message at User_talk:BJBot, thanks! --BJBot (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Serb propaganda

Hey SWik, got your note. Eeesh, sounds terrible. Even the title 'Serb propaganda' sounds POV (But I haven't looked at the article page yet, so I can't say whether I agree with your assessment). Sounds like there needs to be more community input on this. I think you've done the right thing challenging the info you have a problem with on the talk page, hopefully discussion will get started there; maybe give it a couple days. I'm of the firm belief that we should insist on sources for anything likely to be challenged (though you wouldn't want to use this as a beatstick). If nothing productive occurs with the discussion, you're going to have to take it through dispute resolution. I'd file an RfC. If you're right about the blatant POV pushers, they won't get away with it -- the community should fully back you. I'm not good at content disputes, never having been in one myself (and being a big chicken), but an RfC should bring the attention of some neutral admins who can deal with the situation if it comes to that (that is, if people are going against consensus to the point of disruption). Definitely keep me updated on the progress and let me know if the discussion helps or if there's anything I can do. I probably won't really get involved myself, but I can help bring it to the attention of others if it's deemed necessary. Thanks for working to keep the 'pedia neutral. Good luck! Peace, delldot talk 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You vandalizing

I'm not vandalizing anything here. I just put back the original picture, that has been there for a long time. Who is changing the picture is Cantarevolare, not me.

So why didn't you went to his talk page and told him not to change the picture? Why?

Stop vandalizing my talk page, please. Opinoso (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)