User talk:Swatjester/oldstylee

User:Swatjester
User Page	Talk	Contributions	My Awards	Sandbox	ToDo	View Subpages

Swatjester
for ArbCom.
Lead the way!

Swatjester's Talk Page Rules:

Before leaving any messages pertaining to help on a certain subject, check to see if the question is answered here before leaving a message on this talk page!
To start a new message, click the + mark by the "edit this page" tab. Enter your subject, message, and sign your name (see rule seven if you don't know how to sign your name).
If I begin a topic on your talk page, I will respond on your talk page.
If you begin a topic on my talk page, I will respond on my talk page.
I may deviate from that if I choose.
As always, please adhere to civility rules and no personal attacks rules.
If you write a topic out of the ordinary, and delete the topic or text later, I will see it via the history page. Please think before you type.
ALWAYS sign with ~~~~ four tildes, or your message will be deleted.
I have the right to delete inappropriate messages!
Formatting on this page and its transcluded parent courtesy of User:Miranda.

--- Swatjester

Note: This page is best viewed in the "monobook scheme" in Firefox.

Archives
Archive 1, Archive 2
Archive 3, Archive 4 (last old-style archive)
Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7
Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10
Archive 11, Archive 12 (current), Archive 13
Archive 14, Archive 15, Archive 16
Note: Archives are made every 3 days by Misza bot.

Current status
My editing will be limited to OTRS complaints and legal issues for the next two months. I've just completed a legal internship for the Wikimedia Foundation, and am currently law school at American University's Washington College of Law. For any wikipedia issues that cannot be posted on this talk page, please utilize the Email User function of Wikipedia, or if that is unavailable, contact me at drosenthal at wikimedia dot org. In an emergency, you can send an email to flightline at mac dot com, which will go to my iPhone.

Request you reintstate article

Hi, Swatjester, you have just speedily deleted the Midreshet Lindenbaum article about a Jewish school of importance to current Judaism. Some editors who know more about this topic wish to have it re-instated ASAP, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Midreshet lindenbaum speedily deleted?. Kindly reinstate the article, per Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Contesting a proposed deletion, and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Proposed deletions: "Articles deleted under this procedure (using the {{prod}} tag) may be undeleted, without further discussion, on a reasonable request. Any administrator can be asked to do this (or perform this action themselves)..." In the future, before deleting any articles relating to Jews and/or Judaism kindly check with editors who may know more about this subject by asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism. There is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism where editors who follow these kinds of topics should be notified. Thank you, IZAK 09:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to clear my deletions with any Wikiproject. Further the deletion was a speedy deletion, and a valid one at that, not a prod. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am exercising my powers as an administrator and undeleting this article. This institution asserts notablilty, and WP:CSD A7 doesn't apply. Please use the WP:AfD process if you wish to delete this article. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is inappropriate. WP:DRV is the correct venue. Furthermore the deletion was valid, the institution did not assert notability and STILL has no sources, even after your reinstatement. Shoddy behavior in my book. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose to re-delete, which you have a right to, I will not undelete again but will make a deletion review request through channels. I ask you to consider this before deciding whether to do so: The subject of this article was the first institution in the world to offer a religious higher education program for women in a Yeshiva-style environment. As such, it is famous in the world, with substantial reference in both the academic and the religious press. I ask you, in the interest of the project, to look at the current list of references, which are all I've been able come up with in a few minutes. It is very clear at this point that there is both arguable notability and experienced Wikipedia editors who would be prepared to contest any deletion and bring in additional sources and arguments. WP:CSD simply isn't intended for such cases. If you wish to you can also complain about this and I will take responsibility for what I have done. I regret my initial reaction; we occassionally get requests for deletions of articles on subjects of this type from people who object to them on religious grounds, and occassionally those requests go through. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why not simply add sources to the claims that I am deleting? I don't object to it existing as a stub right now, but claims like that have to be sourced. As for CSD-A7, it is not about actual notability, but assertion of such notability. When I deleted the article, it did not assert that.

You're missing the point. I don't care whether the article stays or not. But the claims that it is the "foremost institution in the world" and such like that need to be referenced and cited to reliable sources. Otherwise they CANNOT stay. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no such claim. The claims are that (a) it was the first, (b) among the foremost. Easily verified, see [1] and [2], both on the list of references. I have no connection with the institution. --Shirahadasha 17:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So take those links and put them in the claim, and we have no more problem! What was so hard about doing that the first time?⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had put the sources in previously. I believe the edit history bears this out. The article has been substantially improved. I hope we can move on from here. Best, --Shirahadasha

Please look at the article and let me know if you need yet more citations. I'm sure they can be found. Also, I want to repeat user:IZAK's observation - in the future it might be wise, if an article is part of a project, to check with that project before deleting something for lack of notability. I had a number of things planned for this evening and felt compelled to change my plans just to rescue this article. If you had checked in advance and just accepted our word about its significance (at least temporarily), I could have delayed this work until a more convenient time. Best, Egfrank 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I would never change my personal plans because of a Wikimedia article. That borders on obsession. No edit is so urgent and presing (except BLP edits) that it cannot wait. And while you may repeat IZAK's observation, it's not my job nor is it possible to know every Wikiproject and to notify them before deleting an article that may fall under their scope, especially not when the article is a valid candidate for speedy deletion in the first place. That's an example of wikiprojects attempting to exceed their authority, a problem that seems to be occurring far too often lately. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apologies for quick reverting of your de-linking of links to reinstated article. I was too lazy to type edit comments. `'Míkka 19:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed, but thank you for doing the work instead of me! :) ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Swatjester, I am re-posting here what I have just written to you on my own talk page, because of its importance and because I see that what we are dealing with here is in essence a clash of mindsets as well: Thank you for your response [3]. Let me make it very clear that no-one is questioning your "Jewishness" (it's spelled with a "J" by the way.) The deletion was reverted by Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) [4] and supported by others, so the point is moot now. You know, you should be cautious about WP:LAWYER which advises against: "(1) Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy; (2) Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit; (3) Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express; and (4) Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions." All because Wikipedia is an academic encyclopedia in action and motion and not a court of law! Furthermore I still wish to highly recommend to you the help that anybody can find at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism for discussions, and the usefulness of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism that are wonderful resources of bringing nominations and proposals to a wider spectrum of editors who deal with topics relating to Jews and Judaism on a frequest basis on Wikipedia. You will always be welcome. Sincerely, IZAK 09:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also think that your tone and comments (above) to both Users Egfrank (talk · contribs) and Shirahadasha (talk · contribs) were rude, condescending and insulting, such as when you state: "Shoddy behavior in my book" or "I would never change my personal plans because of a Wikimedia article. That borders on obsession." or "an example of wikiprojects attempting to exceed their authority, a problem that seems to be occurring far too often lately." All violations of WP:CIVIL. And by asserting your "right" to not only not seek but quash the opinions of Wikiprojects you violate WP:OWN on a grand scale, most grievously, by your own words and actions, that are uncalled for. Thank you, IZAK 09:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., you've done nothing to show me that you recognize your own mistake. You came onto my talk page accusing me of deleting something under a deletion method that I did not use. You then accused me of an invalid deletion, which it was not. You then told me that I was wrong for not consulting your Wikiproject, which I am not. You then accused me of WP:OWN issues, which I have not (I cannot "own" an article by deleting it by following policy). I am not a member of your Wikiproject, nor do I wish to be. Wikiprojects are purely organizational, they have no "teeth" as it were. You do not get to dictate to administrators what they can and cannot do without approval of your Wikiproject. And you think I have ownership issues? Please get your facts right before you ever come back onto my talk page in an uncivil and accusatory manner. Finally, do not ever incorrectly lecture me on the WP:LAWYER principle. I'm keenly aware of what Wikipedia is not. I spend every day dealing with legal issues and complaints, I am aware that Wikipedia is not law. There is nothing wrong with me stating that I would never change my social plans to deal with a Wikipedia problem. To do so does in fact border on obsession, and indicates that there is some sort of ownership or unclear judgment issue on behalf of the editor. I am within my rights to hold an opinion on that. Who are you to tell me that I cannot state my own analysis of that, on my own talk page, in a civil manner. (Despite your assertions, nothing about what I said was uncivil. Civility does not require coddling or babytalk.) So, after your ridiculous accusations, I would suggest that you more clearly take a look at Wikipedia policies and procedures and make sure you are actually correct in your allegations before you accuse other people of things. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Swatjester: Thank you for your response. I am starting to get a clearer picture of how you operate. From your reply I can see that you do not have the foggiest idea of the amount of hard work that Wikipedia's voluntary editors put into this encyclopedia and how much they may actually treasure it, and that while I may not have cited the correct "chapter and verse" to the nth degree, it's always a mad rush to save something that is going down the tubes and there isn't always time to look up every last little ruling, nevertheless it did not take too long for another admin to overturn your hasty deletion that was based on faulty information. It is a shame and I have no interest in bothering you unless I see something else of the same nature crop up. I would never dare enter into a field I knew nothing or little about and mess with articles, but that is just me. Have a good day. IZAK 13:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at my user page to see exactly how much hard work and time I personally have put into Wikipedia. Nearly two years, 12,000 edits, hundreds of OTRS actions, time spent at the foundation office, and you say that I haven't the foggiest idea? Once again, I'm offended. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SwatJester, I think you are taking this issue far too personally. The editors above who have expressed concern have tried to be polite and kind. They have a right to express their concerns - just as you have a right to disagree with them. The suggestion to consult the WikiProjects listed on an article's discussion page before accepting an assertion of non-notability was offered in a supportive spirit, not a judgemental spirit. There is no need to express anger in return. Egfrank 13:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! IZAK 13:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply responding to the unsubstantiated and blatantly false statements that IZAK has written every single time that he posts on my page. It's annoying, and it's a misrepresentation of both myself and my opinions. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 14:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use screenshots in a living person's bio?

Hi, could you take a look at the article Catherine Zeta-Jones? There are 3 Fair Use images said to be screenshots used in that article; aren't such images only to be used in an article about the movie itself, not the actor's biography? JGHowes ^talk - 16:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women and SWAT

I was scanning through the discussion at the talkpage of the article on SWAT and saw you making this comment:

"Depends on department, but in most cases, yes. However women make up a relatively small percentage of patrol officers, and within that most do not pass the physical and mental tests for SWAT operations." (Link)

What "mental tests" are women unable to pass in equal quality as opposed to their male counterparts? --Thus Spake Anittas 00:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well first of all, most women are able to pass the tests in equality. The "and mental" was meant to signify that there are mental as well as physical tests involved in joining SWAT. (My unable to pass comment was directed purely at the physical part of it). Unique to SWAT, however, is the high likelyhood of having to pull the trigger, especially as a sniper. A SWAT officer is more likely to have to engage in a firefight than a patrol officer. There is an unspoken rule that women do not go on SWAT, and the ones that do are clearly and undisputedly able to be shooters. Is it fair? No. It's reality. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing. I was just curious to find out what you meant. Altough some of those mental abilities that you are referring to, assuming that they relate to selfdiscipline and objective focus, are based more on developing skill and personal character. Men probably find it easier to terminate other males, than females would; and vice-versa. --Thus Spake Anittas 02:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. There is a significant hangup for men killing women, that I believe women killing women do not have. I do not 100% agree that it goes the other way around, the there is a hangup for women killing men; I feel that desensitization has taken care of that for us. The argument is that across the board women have a greater hangup about killing. I don't have data to support this here, it's just from observation.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watt balance image

Swatjester: Why did you delete (edit change here) the NIST watt balance picture from the Kilogram article? Your terse edit summary comment “bad fair use image” is hardly descriptive. I thought I had made a clear case for fair use in the Licensing section and had used it precisely as required. Greg L (my talk) 00:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a valid fair use image on say, the NIST page, or on a watt balance page. But since we already have free images on the Kilogram page, this image does not significantly improve the article enough to justify a fair use image. Try to find a free one instead. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 02:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester, the principal free image is one I made and donated so the article looks professional. The billiards picture is obviously free with no licensing encumberments. The ‘displacement’ picture had its copyright expire. Whether or not there are other pictures in an article should be mostly irrelevant to whether or not it is fair use to use the Watt balance picture. The primary legal issue should be whether or not the Watt balance section of the article sufficiently discusses the NIST’s implementation of the watt balance merit the fair use of the copyrighted image. Right? I would prefer to add text to the section regarding the NIST’s implementation and add the picture. The picture gives the reader a sense of the incredible effort that is going into these electronic versions. You should also know that I’ve exchanged probably well over a dozen e-mails with Richard Steiner at the NIST while writing this article and he read the article (several times) during my editing. He thinks its an accurate section and certainly doesn't mind his project’s privileged treatment in the article. My mentioning his name in the caption was partially an acknowledgment to him for all the time he spent writing rather expansive answers back to me. I do my homework when writing these articles and would like this decision to based solely on the legal hurdle that must be met. You’ve got your law degree so I would appreciate more legal detail in the explanation of your reasoning. Would a modest expansion to the section in question so the picture looks less decorative address your objections? Greg L (my talk) 03:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little early, I don't have my law degree yet, it's in progress. And there is no legal detail in my explanation for the removal. I've removed in under WP:NFCC, our policy on Non free content criteria. Number 1: No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense. Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect?" If the answer is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.). Also, (a) Minimal number of uses. As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. But most importantly, it does not meet rule number 8: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function. Unfortunately, this image's omission is not detrimental to the understanding of what a kilogram is. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 03:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SwatJester: OK now… Respectfully, I think you are mistaken. Maybe the picture isn't related to the current IPK-based version of the kilogram. However, the “kilogram” is the subject of the article, right? (say “yes” here); and the NIST’s implementation of the Watt balance is the leading contender in the development of the future “electronic kilogram”. A version of the Watt balance will likely one day be the kilogram. The picture of the electronic kilogram (the next definition of the kilogram) is solidly germane to the topic of this article. And clearly, the picture isn’t being used decoratively at the head of the article to give it *bling*; it accompanied the text directly addressing the Watt balance to illustrate that precise topic. Regarding the test of “Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect,” as I explained in the picture’s rational, clearly not. Access to the lab is highly restricted and no other pictures can be substituted. If the above is your reasoning, I want you to reconsider your position. The picture clearly illustrates the topic of “kilogram.” Greg L (my talk) 04:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I added another bullet item to the fair-use rational in the picture regarding what I wrote above. You have a lot of images to wade through and no one can expect you to read the entire article when making judgements of merit. The added bullet item could have saved us both some time and effort. Greg L (my talk) 04:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still fails to meet the requirement of "significantly increases reader's understanding of the subject, and more importantly, it's ommission is not detrimental to the understanding of what the subject is. We strive to minimize our use of non-free media wherever possible. This is such a subject where we already have quite a few free pictures, we don't need to add another on-free one in there. Since we already have the non-free pictures, removing the free one does not detract from the article. Removing it helps continue to build Wikipedia as a free-content encyclopedia. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SwatJester: If someone sees a picture of the IPK (a cylinder of metal), that sets an image in their mind of what the IPK is: a simple cylinder of metal. Now suppose that same reader then reads text describing how the kilogram may one day be delineated by a device called a “Watt balance.” Well, what in the world would such a thing look like? Big? Small? Complex? Why would any press release from the NIST include a picture of the apparatus being discussed? The answer is obvious: Without a picture, all the reader has is their imagination as to what a watt balance might look like and every reader will have a different picture in their head. A picture gives the reader some general concept of the nature of device is being discussed. I might agree with you if this was an issue over a four-inch diameter sphere of silicon (as with the Avogadro project). A picture of that wouldn’t do much to increase the reader’s sense of what a ‘silicon sphere’ looks like other than to see how shiny it is. And even that could be provided with additional text: ‘the Avogadro project’s silicone prototype would be smooth, really shiny sphere.’ Of course the picture of the Watt balance helps significantly increase the reader’s understanding; the nature of such a device is entirely outside of the average person’s experience. Greg L (my talk) 04:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that people are coming to the kilogram page to learn about kilograms. A watt balance, while similar, is not the subject of the kilogram page. For fair-use purposes, that makes it too far attenuated. Remember, we are a free content encyclopedia, and we need to be focusing as much of our efforts as possible in the direction of finding and collecting free images, rather than forcing and justifying fair-use ones in there. Fair-use images hurt wikipedia. I've said my peace, and I think I've made my points abundantly clear that there is a clear rationale for removing that image on the Kilogram page. If that image were to be on the Watt balance page, obviously that would be acceptable. At this point I do not feel there is anything left to discuss here that hasn't been said already. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“The problem is that people are coming to the kilogram page to learn about kilograms.” Precisely (but that’s not a “problem”). “A watt balance, while similar, is not the subject of the kilogram page.” Correct observation, entirely incorrect premiss to support your position.
1) The picture accompanies a section within the Kilogram article directly discussing the Watt balance. 2) the Watt balance—something you think somehow isn’t related to the kilogram—may one day be the new definition and delineation of the kilogram. If that isn't topical to the subject of “kilogram”, nothing is SwatJester.
Your rationale for deleting this picture from the article has been bouncing around and I’ve chased each one down and properly addressed them only to have you test a new reason. One of the reasons you cited earlier was “Can this image be replaced by a different one that has the same effect,” as I explained right in the picture’s fair-use rational, clearly not; public access to the lab is restricted.
Another angle you’ve tried is whether the picture "significantly increases reader's understanding of the subject.” I clearly explained above that the Watt balance is a complex piece of machinery that is totally beyond the bounds of common experience and a picture is clearly necessary for someone to develop some understand the nature of device.
Finally, the Watt balance is a project funded by the U.S. Government. The picture is free to use wherever the NIST’s project is being discussed. You seem to be misapplying a solution to an entirely different problem, such as if a picture of a copyrighted movie poster of Gone With the Wind was being used in an article on Vivien Leigh. The basis for deleting the movie poster is obvious in this example: one weighs infringement of a copyright owners rights against whether there is clear and compelling reason to do so. In the case of the Watt balance picture, it is of a government-funded project and is being used in the manner intended by the NIST. Finally it’s clear on the face of it that the Watt balance (a project to develop a better kilogram and something that could one day be the kilogram) is germane to the topic of “kilogram”; this much is just too obvious.
Have you received an objection from Robert Rathe Photography? If so, then I’m going to raise hell at the NIST that they let a photographer get exclusive access to their lab to take pictures for them and he’s not abiding by the terms of the deal. Greg L (my talk) 20:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, no I've received no communications. For another, you do not seem to understand our Non-Free Content Criteria. I've done my best to explain them to you, but if you cannot understand them, I will not further argue with it. Suffice it to say, the picture would be acceptable on a separate "watt balance" article but it simply is not allowable on the Kilogram article. I've given you many reasons why: it's too attenuated, we have other free pictures to explain the subject, it's not the direct subject of the article, it doesn't improve the article, it's omission does not hurt the article, etc. Your argument that "maybe the watt balance will be the new kilogram" is not for us to decide on Wikipedia; that's original research and does not belong here. As for the Watt balance project's funding by the US Government, that does not automatically make it a free image; it certainly has no effect if the photographer is not a US Government employee. I'm sorry, but your reasons to keep the image are simply not compelling enough. I'm not inclined to discuss the situation any further. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is not with Wikipedia's policy, which makes ample sense. It is with your rationale for applying it, which is in error and isn't supported by the facts. You resorted to being highly selective in quoting my position to buttress yours. You wrote above that I argued that “maybe the watt balance will be the new kilogram" and this doesn’t provide sufficient reason to include the picture. You further attempted to diminish that “quote” by branding it with an “original research” label. Finally, you put text attributed to me in quotes that wasn’t what I wrote; it was just your diminutive description of my position. That’s a cheap shot and I’ll have none of it. This technique of yours, of choosing snippets of my position and misrepresenting them in an attempt to strengthen your own reveals the true strength of your argument. It also conveniently ignores the central point I’ve been making, which is that the Watt balance is current government research into a new definition of the kilogram. Your argument that this project has too little to do with the kilogram—the topic of the article—is wholly without foundation. Greg L (my talk) 01:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 01:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A BLP case

Greetings Swatjester, I notice you once intervened on Aleksandar Donski on BLP/OTRS grounds. The offending material you removed was all back when I looked today. I haven't yet checked the page history to see who's responsible. Maybe this could do with another look by you too. Time for blocks? There's some pretty persistent edit-warring going on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't been following it since then. Looks like you have it all under control. By the way, I'm pretty sure that one IP address (starts with an 8) that edit summaried with "Balance!" is User:Jingiby while blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch [5], that's Jingiby, but he isn't blocked at the moment. Last block he had was yours a month ago. In general, Macededonian-Bulgarian feuds have been running high, lots of tendentious editing from all corners. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was. I atempted to balance in the edit - war between Frightner and others and added two references, but it did not help! Regards! Jingby 17:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]