User talk:Swatjester/oldstylee

This user thinks that registration should be required to edit articles.

I'm an anti-anon user. This means that if anonymous editors post on my talk page, I likely will ignore or delete their comments. Please take the time to better Wikipedia and register. It's free and takes like 3 seconds. ⇒ SWATJester

Please post comments below this line. Remember, sign with 4 tildes (~~~~) to show name, time and date. Only 3 tildes leaves off the date, and 5 tildes shows only the date.

Interestingly enough, since I posted that, not a single person has posted their talk comments at the top of the page like I asked. Oh well. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Archives

Archive 1 : User_talk:Swatjester archive1 Start to Feb 6 2006.

Page has been archived. Feel free to continue whatever here. I ask that you please post talk comments at the TOP of the page, rather than the bottom. ⇒ SWATJester 20:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

---

AIV

I removed the vandal I reported on AIV because he's already been blocked. Why did you put it back? --Etacar11 19:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, your revert took out my vandal posting. I'll go remove your vandal.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I realized that and fixed it, but I think our edits crossed each other. Sorry for the mix up! :) --Etacar11 19:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• P.S. I'm a "she." :D --Etacar11 19:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Must have. I deleted the one that I accidentally reinserted. It SHOULD be fixed now. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

File:Plunger 250x410.jpg

Thanks for taking the time to vote in my RfA, which passed with a final vote of 54/2/1 despite my obvious inadequacy for the job. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise (I blocked a vandal last night despite having said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

BHD

At the time 21 minutes 51-59 sec on the DVD, Garrison states something to the effect of 'I had requested light armour and AC-130 Spectre gunships, but Washington in all its wisdom decided against it.' Hrimfaxi 08:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hot damn, you're right. I remember that part now. I was thinking you were referring to the ending credits. No problem then. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Top posting

Hi, a post at the TOP. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Gah! That was too far up! But the effort is appreciated! Energetic puppies sure can jump high!⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I suggest that you ditch the idea of getting people to post at the top. We spend so much time teaching newbies to post at the bottom, per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#General_standards, that someone actually trying to change that for their talk page is counter-intuitive, at best. Also consider Top-posting. With thousands of registered users and over 600 (possibly over 700) Admins all following guidelines and posting at the end of a page, swimming against the current will be problematical at best. The only other editor I know of who requests that posts be at the top is Light current, not someone I would necessarily care to emulate. Your decision, of course. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'd rather leave it, just cause it makes things easier for me to read, but if nobody follows it I won't make a big deal of it.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your desire to have new items at the top (which is how I sort my email, regardless of the system default), but I don't think you'll have much luck here, as it affects everyone who comes to read your page. One way to avoid dealing with bottom-posting is to just use your watchlist and look only at the diffs. That way, regardless of where the writer has placed their comments, it displays up at the top. --Habap 18:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I do that already. It's just for convenience sake when I look back at the comments on the page, it's unnatural to me to have to scan from the bottom up to go from newest to oldest. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Are Vulgarities Legal?

Hey Swat, if a person uses a few choice words four letter words and the like, is against wiki policies? jVirus 04:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Depends how. Is it in the vein of a personal attack? If so, then yes it's against policy because of the personal attack, not the vulgarity, as per WP:NPA.⇒ SWATJester 20:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sig

Yep, seems to be working fine now. Looks pretty good. And thanks for think of me as being helpful. Sorry you were not in any need of help, though. ;-) See you around. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it might not be working because a page cannot link to itself, so [[User talk:Swatjester]] turns to User talk:Swatjester when saved. You can try your signatures in your sandbox if you want. Your sig is your own preference. I personally hate sigs with images in them, but to each his own. See ya. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I got it working now, and figured out. You're dead on. I hope you don't hate my sig too much though, I put the icelandic flag in there in preparation for my future move to Iceland. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

TOC

Hm....where'd my ToC go? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Read this. Cheers, NoSeptember ^talk 22:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't know you were watching here, but I've seen you around before a bunch of times, so hi! ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:FLA

Not from Florida, I'm one of those imports. I live on the Space Coast currently. BTW, you do realize you can force a TOC right? You don't need four sections to see a TOC. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know. BTW, on an unrelated note, I'm thinking about nominating myself for an RfA in about 100-150 more edits. (I'm in the low 900's right now). What do you think? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I came here because I saw your vote at RfA. Very few people succeed with less than 3 months and 2000 edits to their credit. Keep on voting and commenting at RfA and you will pick up on what people expect from a candidate for admin. NoSeptember ^talk 22:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, you're refering to my vote on Brainhell? Yeah. I'm holding off till I get a little more time, but I'm getting myself ready. Below is a link to my test application that I'll be modifying until I file an actual one. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Swatjester/admintest (fixed link ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

Actually, I saw your vote on sjorford. Get in the habit of adding an edit summary to every edit (even the minor ones) - it matters to some voters. Get involved in policy discussions and participate (at least experiment) in all aspects of the encyclopedia and the community, and never get in edit/revert wars, lose your cool or insult someone. Do that and you should have no problems applying in about 2 months. NoSeptember ^talk 22:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Good deal. I've recently started getting involved into the projects, as well as policy stuff. I most always do edit summaries unless Wikipedia automatically fills them in for me. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

colors etc...

hey how do i get colors in my signature and the like. for instance when i put html ie jVirus in the signature box it prints that out exactly. I am doing something wrong. jVirus 23:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you check the box below the signature? It's something like "raw signature" or something? It needs to be checked. I just started by copying and pasting 3 or 4 people's sigs and then testing them out until I found a combination that I like and works. Check my userpage, it has the code for my sig. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Postmoderism

Hi,

Try this link for an interesting look at postmodernism: http://www.wall.org/~larry/pm.html

Good luck at NLP.

Regards, Ben Aveling 08:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

third opinion

Thank you very much for your third opinion on the Brothers to the rescue page. I very much appreciate it and hope it will contribute to ending the revert war. Regards, Jens Nielsen 09:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

NLP

Mentors have now been named. I am taking that article off my watch list unless otherwise requested. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Good deal. Should I end my mediation then? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I missed this post - I would ask the mentors, if you have a question. IMHO you're doing some good there. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I'll stick around...kinda interested to see how this turns out. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the page is better off with your presence. So long as you're getting something out of it, I'd keep going. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your service

As a dyed-in-the-wool civilian, but child of two military brats (One Army (Field Arty), the other Navy (Medical Corps).), I go out of my way to thank veterans for their service to the country. MARussellPESE 03:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 13:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Which part of Iceland are you from??

Redhead310 17:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Charlotte

I'm not. I'm making plans to move there next year. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 17:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Blackhawk Down trivia section

Why did you remove the paragraph on names on helmets? --Habap 21:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Because the information is wrong. Soldiers names are actually on their helmets, on the camo-bands. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, didn't know that. Was that the case at the time? (I never served, so I don't know.) --Habap 15:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends on for who you're talking about. For the rangers, yes, because they were using PASGT helmets. For the Delta operators, they were using hockey or bicycle helmets, so no they didn't wear them, and delta doesn't generally wear name identifications anyway. The 10th mountain guys as well were wearing PASGT's, so they'd have it too. Can't speak for the marines that were there, and I know for a fact that the SEAL's that were there did not have any identification (and it was only after the fact that anyone realized they were SEALs.) ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

opening attack

As per request. now registered Krait 04:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Like I said, we disagree on the content of that paragraph, but we came to a good compromise, and I'm just willing to bet that article will be semi-protected at some point, and you'll want to have a registered account so you can keep editing it. Plus many people (myself included) don't respect anonymous editors. Anon's don't have the right to participate in consensus votes either. Anyway, drive on airborne. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 16:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics

Hey, what took you there, and are you planning to stay? If so, be prepared to repeat yourself about 9 million times regarding sources, attributions, can we discuss the article and not the editors? and so on. OTOH it is much nicer than NLP. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It was on the WP:3O page if I remember correctly. I'm not planning on getting in the article or the talk, but accusations of slander are my pet-peeve. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Testing

I'm testing posting on your page using the "+" button, it's still going to the bottom buddy. --Cyde Weys 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Hahahhahah, did you miss Killer pups lecture bout that? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I also missed the mantra "TRUTHINESS IS GODLINESS" in Nineteen Eighty-Four, but then again, I miss a lot of things. --Cyde Weys 01:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dissention? Report to the ministry of swatjester for immediate reprogramming. -edit- doubleplusquick. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 01:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I shall report doubleplusunquickly (translation: in about 30 years). --Cyde Weys 01:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 1.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay ^{Talk • Contact}, Chairman, 12:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

(This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay.)

Wow.....how ironic. If by recently, you mean, last month.... ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 13:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Legal threats/copyvio

You quoted this link when you reported to WP:AN. I still cannot find any instance of a specific legal threat, and certainly no instance where he has said "I'll sue Wikipedia". What he said was "I feel Muslims will have no choice but to take the matter to the court of law": this is not specific enough to merit a ban. However a large part of the edit was obviously lifted directly from Socialist Worker—the copyright notice was even left in place—and was thus in violation of copyright (the licence is not GFDL compatible). If you know of any instances where this editor has specifically threatened to sue the Wikimedia Foundation or any specific Wikipedia user, I would be grateful if you could provide the diff. Physchim62 (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Was it really lifted that blatantly? Wow, I totally missed that. Ok so now I understand the copyvio issue. As for the "Muslims will have no choice but to take the matter to the court of law" is an implicit threat, not explicit. Legally, it would still be considered a threat, in the US. As for wikipedia policy, while I understand that because he did not explicitly make the threat against wikipedia, it still, according to WP:NLT has the following chilling effects on free speech.

• It severely inhibits free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systematic bias in our articles.

• It causes bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the Wikipedia community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently and with an assumption of mutual good faith.

• Wikipedia has had bad experiences with users who have made legal threats in the past, and by making legal threats, you may damage your reputation on Wikipedia.

These are what in the US legal system are called "chilling effects", meaning that by his comment, he may have scared other users into NOT exercising their free speech and other rights on wikipedia. THAT is why we have a NLT policy. That was why I brought the issue up. Since the user is blocked, I don't think it really matters anymore now, but do you understand why I make the point that there WAS a problem? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is all true, of course, but it is only one side of the story. If we take too wide a definition of a legal threat, we effectively exclude users from warning us of the legal consequences of our actions. It is not a legal threat to say, for example, "this is libellous": we need rather more people out there who pick up on libellous points in our articles so that they can be caefully considered. The same with copyright violation or, in this case, incitement to racial hatred (UK law). It is a PoV which deserves to be debated on a talk page. The policy page makes it clear that blocks are at the discretion of admins—it should not be an automatic indefinite block as some seem to feel, because this works against the idea of diffusing the dispute. Far better to persuade someone that their legal opinion is incorrect on wiki than to have to rebut it in court. Incidentally, the user who pointed out "this is libellous" got an indefinite block: by the time the Foundation calmed him down he really was ready to issue a writ. By jumping the gun, we merely make more work for the Foundation office and increase our risk of one day being sued for real.

As you mentioned, I managed to find a way to avoid applying WP:NLT in a case where I did not think it appropriate, and where (IMHO) it may just have have been counterproductive. I hope this answers some of your queries. Physchim62 (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yuan T. Lee images

I'm afraid those images arent works of the federal government and therefore arent PD. LBL states: "COPYRIGHT STATUS: LBNL authored documents are sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC02-05CH11231. Accordingly, the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce these documents, or allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. These documents may be freely distributed and used for non-commercial, scientific and educational purposes. Commercial use of the documents available from this server may be protected under the U.S. and Foreign Copyright Laws." Furthermore, I dont even know if those photos were created by LBL employees. Their presence here and on the nobel website suggest that they are "© the Nobel Foundation" (conincidentally both Image:Yuan T. Lee family.jpg and Image:Yuan T. Lee.jpg were photographed in 1986, the year he was awarded with the prize.)

so i originally uploaded the images believing to be PD, but found out later otherwise.--Jiang 08:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I figured since LBL was a government run organization, and it was on a .gov website that would work.

Regardless or not, as nobel laureate, Lee IS a public figure and you might be able to claim fair use due to that?⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 18:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

LBL is run by the University of California (as a contractor for the US govt).

The article already has too many images, so I think we can do without a few.--Jiang 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I know this about LBL because I just read "The Cuckoo's egg" which talked about it. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 02:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you Hello Swatjester, and thank you for your support in my request for adminship! It passed with a final count of 63/4/3. I am honoured by the community support and pledge to serve the project as best as I can. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RfA. It was successful and I hope to be a good administrator. Essexmutant 11:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Iraq War

Hi, I have issued a final warning to User:64.135.10.200 warning him to cool off and engage in rational discussion. I have also reverted the article back to the pre-edit war version and will continue monitoring developments. I hope you understand my reluctance to block anyone in situations such as this one, though I will do so if the anon continues to enage in personal attacks. In the meantime, perhaps it would be a good idea to consider how to incorporate the information on these developments into the article. Thanks. -Loren 20:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, though I doubt he'll cool off. I actually really don't care how the information gets put into the article, I was just more worried about the blatant misplacement of the edit at the top. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Swatjester, thank you for you support in my RfA. I was promoted with a final count of 48/1/0! If you see me making any mistakes, let me know ASAP. -- WB 02:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

User_talk_talk:Get-back-world-respect

ok, I removed the speedy tag. I hope you folks can all sort that out; it sounds like a mess and it's ugly to have it spill over like it did.

On another subject, I'm spending a fair amount of time on WP:RCP, and with all the crap I end up deleting I'm starting to take an anti-anon stance like the one you mention on this page... bikeable (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I hear ya. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey -- please don't continue that discussion with User:84.59.79.243 on my Talk page! thanks. bikeable (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

sure. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 21:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

{{RFM-Request}}