Jump to content

User talk:Swatjester/archive9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hi Swatjester

Can you look at User_talk:Sam_Blacketer#3RR_report, User:Sam_Blacketer has clearly made a mistake in his closing rational of the 3RR report. He doesn't appear to be online either, do I re-list the 3RR report? Can you please review the case? --Mardavich 05:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. But I don't think that block will last for long. If you notice, every other time Miskin has been blocked, someone has unblocked him within minutes or hours. This is mainly due to the fact that he's friends with several administrators.--Mardavich 06:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
If they unblock me, I will reblock preventatively and post on AN/I, where it's sure to get consensus. Seven blocks for disruption on 300/persian war related articles (eight if you count my reblocking)? No admin can justify allowing that. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warning

ROCKS FALL! EVERYONE DIES! - David Gerard 21:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OHS NOES! ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Miskin

This conversation has been moved to WP:AN/I#block_review_regarding_.22admins_in_troublesome_user.27s_back_pocket.22. Apparently my block was justified, by overwhelming support. Who'd have thought, huh? Guess the allegations of "admins in this user's back pocket" were actually true.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that you cannot issue permanent blocks for 3RR against established users (as opposed to trolling accounts etc.), as you are threatening on User_talk:Miskin. The user's "huge blocking log" you cite consists of six 3RR blocks spread over two years. The user has not been blocked since last September. The revert war you blocked Miskin for was against Dharmender6767 (talk · contribs), now indefblocked as a trolling account, which seems to indicate that Miskin wasn't so much indulging in mindless reverting but rather victim of a trolling attack. In view of this, your one month block is unjustified. You may well threaten to escalate to longer blocks if this continues, since the user is clearly aware of the 3RR and should know better. I am however reducing the block back to the original 24h period. dab (𒁳) 14:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I only just noted your comment above. I am not sure how you count "seven blocks for disruption on 300/persian war related articles", I see six blocks for simple 3RR, none of them over "300", going back to July 2005, some of them revoked as invalid, and not a single block that he had to sit out for its full duration, his only block in all of 2006 and 2007 was for "unilateral moves", revoked after all of 38 minutes. This is nothing like the history of "disruption" you are alleging. We are looking at a valuable contributor who sometimes blunders into a fourth revert, but immediately cools down if warned. But yes, I encourage you to take the case to AN/I if you disagree (while your announced "preventative reblock" would constitute wheel warring. It is also unnecessary, since I set the block to 15 hours left over from your original 24 hours block). dab (𒁳) 14:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to second Dieter on this issue. Swatjester, please review our blocking policy and be more careful when issuing blocks in the future. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Same here. A one-month-block out of the blue under these circumstances was totally out of proportion. You also say "he's been blocked 7 times for disruptive editing on this topic", something which is not true (he has never been blocked for any edits on this topic).--Ploutarchos 14:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR is very clear. The user has 7 blocks for 3RR violations and disruptive editing. And you're saying that's acceptable? ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 16:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • user has four precedent 3rr blocks, not seven as you keep claiming, two of them revoked before expiring, all of them aged more than a year.
  • "indefinite" blocks are not "longer periods", they are permabans on an account
  • I complained because you conflated a 3RR block with hand-waving "disruption" allegations:
    "extensive disruptiveness, culminating in a 3RR violation that earned your SEVENTH block. Your disruptive editing will no longer be tolerated: the next block will be permanent."
  • I have yet to see the diffs for this extensive disruptiveness. In view of your cavalier quips along the lines of "admins in disruptive user's back pocket" they had better be good examples of blatant obscenity.

I am uncomfortable with your attitude. You are a janitor here, not a sergeant-major. dab (𒁳) 19:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was only a sergeant. Got kicked out of the army for a bad back. Continued on your talks.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Unresolved, but has been moved to WP:RFAR, now an open Arbitration case. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered

You linked to a red link in your comment there. You may want to correct it. JoshuaZ 17:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh, I was guessing at the page name. I'll fix it in a sec. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Resolved, this was fixed a long time ago. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 08:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Fsu-lg.png

Hello, Swatjester. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Fsu-lg.png) was found at the following location: User talk:Swatjester/archive5. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh...ok? Wasn't mine, didn't know it was there, feel free to nuke. Not that the bot will see this. Anyway, no further action taken, resolved. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Isaac Bear Edits

Well, I realize these are not exactly "cited". However, these edits are made from people at our school, and the staff monitors the page closely. Any vandalism or false information on this page from the students is quickly changed. I do not know how to go about citing the information. What annoys me the most is that a few of the articles people are goin by are wrong, yet Wikipedia says that they are right over the student body. I have a feeling that I know whats going on at our school, and would appreciate if you could infrom me on how to make it so that students who actually want a nice page can make one. --Dinjaga 05:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Read "Citing Sources". Also, note that your school is not "entitled" to a page, and it must conform with our policies. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No further action taken, resolved. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 08:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Franken

The discussion pretty much died on the vine; unfortunately, I think Dave Pierre was more interested in spamming the page than in any long-term contributions. That's a shame - we could use a contributor like him. He showed some desire to grow and learn how to edit, but I think in the end he became too frustrated that he couldn't just write what he wanted. I haven't checked out the Conservapedia Al Franken page in awhile to see if he wrote that one or not. --David Shankbone 11:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh well. No further action, resolved. Mediation complete, I guess, since the party left. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 08:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 17:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Unresolved, in progress. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 08:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

SanchiTachi

SWATJester, I was wondering if you could take a look at Sanchi's latest statements on Talk:Warhammer 40,000. There's clearly no way to be reasonable here. MSJapan 03:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Especially when you and Darkson feel the need to delete entries that other people put in, do not have legitimate reasons to do so, ignore verifiability and notability rules, and feel the need to try and dominate the page anyway you can. I never did anything to create the page. I only cleaned up your constant blanking of what people have legitimately put in. Variants was clearly defined in the source used, and that source says all Space Marine groups are variants. Thus, notability would kick in, and Ultramarines, being a group that not only plays a significant part in Space Marine history, but also in Tyranid history, having two new major models (plus its old characters), definately has a right to be included. SanchiTachi 03:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No action will be taken here. As I told SanchiTachi to request assistance on AN/I next time, I'd offer the same to you. Resolved. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 08:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My statement was made for the purpose of the RFAR. I have no wish to make a statement that would likely only be duplicating others. No further action, resolved. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit to Absinthe per OTRS #2007051310010621

I am curious as to the reasons for the edit and deletion of information on the absinthe page. The section edited is often a misunderstood one. I and those working on the page would be happy to correct, explain and/or source questioned sections, and thus a discussion or explanation would be nice. -- Ari 20:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I will re-write that section with sources this weekend and see if it works. This has been good as there are a few errors in the currently deleted part for some reason I didn't catch. -- Ari 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
To keep from editing the main page over and over I've added a rewrite of the section with more sources on a sub page here: re-right, I'm not finished but I would like you to check over it and see what needs to be added/sourced to meet OTRS requirements. -- Ari 05:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


Unresolved. I'll check it when I get a chance Ari, it may take a little while. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 08:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for sources on La Clandestine article

I have added some comments on your request for sources to the discussion page. I don't want to turn the page into advertising, so would be grateful for comments there. Thanks. Alanmoss 05:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved, the sources provided by Alanmoss were good, and it's well sourced without being advert. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Shane Ruttle Martinez

First of all, the Toronto Sun is a tabloid and should not be considered a reliable source. Secondly, simply having been arrested isn't enough to be included in the article of a living person. There should also be a conviction, and there is no proof of that whatsoever. My understanding is that the charges were dropped. Thirdly, the video isn't published by a reliable source, but is made by a neo-Nazi outfit and therefore shouldn't be included. It also looks to be libelous from the way it is described by the neo-Nazis. Therefore, Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting / linking / referring to it. Lastly, I've seen various videos online of the day in question, and they identify the person in the picture on the DVD box as being "Jose", not Shane Ruttle Martinez. So, I don't think your action was justifiable.

Frank Pais 14:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of libel fail when you have sourced information. If you think the video is libellous, sue the video people. Wikipedia is not censored. As for "jose" that constitutes original research, and is unacceptable. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't the verifiable, not factual, requirement force the information to be provided, even if the group was a "neo-Nazi" group? This is Wikipedia, not "100% truth if you ignore what this minority group says." Because if thats the case, I think that a lot of pages of Meinkempf should be edited out to ensure that nothing of what Hitler said actually makes it in (being the original Nazi, I think that he would fall under the "not credible" according to Frank). BTW, he removed the content. SanchiTachi 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It should be noted that Frank Pais has some relation to, or possibly is Shane Ruttle Martinez, per research on OTRS-en-l mailing list. Also, if you are viewing this, please note that the page in question is now protected in regards to ticket #2007051910009434. I consider this matter closed as far as it involves my talk page. Further communication for this can continue on OTRS, or on the article talk. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Griot

What's [[1]] all about? We had some disagreements, but I fail to see what kind of "trouble" you had with me. I have abided by the Walther and Glock agreements. What's the deal? Griot 19:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, we had a disagreement. It was trouble. I neither agreed with, nor disagreed with the IP's comments. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Having a dispute is not big deal, though, right? We resolved it. How does that merit making a comment about me on an "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" page? If I complained about everybody I disagree with, I'd spend all my time on wikipedia at that page. Griot 19:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Gracias, hombre. Griot 19:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaaand it's either off of AN/I now or going there quickly, with no other attention. Resolved, and sympathies for Griot for having to deal with that anon. complaint. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

StarCraft II protection

If you look at the protection log, you'll see that the article was protected in June 2006 by User:Ilyanep and has not been unprotected since. So this is the first time since then that the article has been unprotected. But whatever, I have no interest in wheel warring. JACOPLANE • 2007-05-19 19:50

Sorry I missed that you protected the article under a different title yesterday. If I'd seen that I wouldn't have unprotected. Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-05-19 19:58
No problem, I figured it was something simple like that. I was confused as well, I didn't see that the page had moved either, I honestly thought I had protected both! Resolved.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Drive for the Firearms Wikiproject

Hello Swatjester. The Firearms Wikiproject is having an infobox drive. The purpose of this is to ensure that most (if not all) of the articles within our scope have the relevant infoboxes. The start date will be May 28th. If you choose to participate, go to our project page and pick an article under the To-do list's Infobox section or look for firearm articles that need an infobox. Before you start editing an article, please cross it out on the list so that we don't have editor's work clashing. The drive will last for five days. If you are interested, please RSVP to LWF. Thank you, the Firearms Wikiproject. --Seed 2.0 09:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, I'm on it. In progress, but resolved as far as this page is concerned. I'll be doing theXM312. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 17:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

reply

I've answered your comment on my RfA. Thank you. The Transhumanist    21:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

resolved. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

University High School

So, myhighschooljournalism cannot be considered a reliable source even if the official high school paper is hosted there?

Also, do you mind if you visit Talk:University_High_School_(Los_Angeles,_California)#filming_on_campus_.28attn:_whisper.29 and comment about why it was deleted?

WhisperToMe 22:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a non-factchecked source by student journalists, who aren't required to verify their sources, regarding allegations of negative actions? How can that be a reliable source. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining :) - There was a HUGE debate over this, and now it may be ending :) WhisperToMe 22:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Ms. Mondegreen is going to rewrite the section and add more sources (and diff. sources) - So, why not look at what she wrote once she is finished? WhisperToMe 14:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If I remember, heh, or if you remind me. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well this turned into a shit storm. Resolved: the trolls won, I got pissed and gave up trying to do the right thing. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 11:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you want the response here...

...I suggest you come clean with what you know. Do 60 people need to be desysopped. I don't think so, I would like to think that all 60 weren't available. But I think I have a right to know who was involved, and I think you have a responsibility to share that information with ArbCom. My two cents, can't force anything, obviously. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you want to know, I'll be glad to give you a summary, though giving a log would be against policy. Not to mention I don't keep logs on IRC, since I literally had less than 500mb of free disk space until yesterday. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious as to who was responsible, and how it could have possibly come to this. I suggest an Arbcom statement, too. i'm very curious, but I don't want to know privately or here. Put it at Arbcom, let them sort it out. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll talk about it here. One Arbcom case at the time is enough. I'd rather not be a party in another. There were about 4 or so people in favor of the block, and 4, maybe 5 or 6 or so against. Some of the ones in favor suggested that nothing happen until there was on wiki discussion. I was one of those. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
That's really vague, and I really think you shouldn't avoid ArbCom on this one. I don't want to talk about it here anymore, in fact - do the right thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm doing the wrong thing? I'm telling you what you want to know. I'm not going to give out logs, that's against policies, and I'm not going to name names, other than myself, that'd be just as bad. The only person who did anything here was Zsinj. Calm down and back off of everyone else, or is thoughtcrime illegal now? Zsinj knew what he was doing, and he knew the block would likely be overturned. He did it anyway. When he gets back tomorrow, ask him why. Don't take it out on the rest of us. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to do anything improper. I am asking you to go to ArbCom with what you know, and I am suggesting you not protect people. I think I'll go now before you get me to the point of a place I don't want to be. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you're in a place you don't want to be. How about this: I'll consider your request to talk to ArbCom. As well though, I'd like you to at least acknowledge my point that Zsinj's actions were his own, and not ours. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You do what you feel is right, but I'm sure you understand my very, very heavy skepticism. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand it. I think it's coming from outrage, but I understand it. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll keep my mouth shut, let's put it that way. I'll explain further in a month or so if you're still curious. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
If you'd like to privately email me, you may. I may not be available in a month or so. edit: and any such emails would have my confidentiality⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm having a very hard time trusting anyone at this point. So hopefully you will be. If not, speculation is a fun activity from time to time, I suppose. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I will be...what?⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, resolved as far as my talk page is concerned. Either arbcom accepts it or not. Either way, Jeff is unblocked. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 11:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A Conflict of Interest

An admin, user:Jossi, spoke out on the page of Shane Ruttle Martinez‎ to contest what you previous deemed as being proper for BLP in a similar way to passive wheel warring. I asked the admin to stop making claims without putting forth proof to reinforce the claims of BLP violation, and to not ignore the non-notable and non-verifiable sources that did existed in the page (which the admin refused to change, but was adamant about removing the ones already determined by you to fall under BLP). Then my user page was edited by User:Finell, with claims that I am not allowed to put quotations from Wiki essays on my user page (because he disagreed with it). That user then complained about my deleting of his edits and asking for him not to edit my user space in that way again. He complained here User_talk:Jossi#SanchiTachi.

Jossi responded with: "I do not know what I can do, really. He is already getting substantial feedback from many editors. If he persists with such aggressive behavior, a user RFC may be appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)". However, if you look at User talk:Finell you will see: User_talk:Finell#Thank_you.2C_Finell.21 (by the same Jossi, based on the history saying it is user Jossi). The admin is showing a conflict of interest and I believe that Finell went on behalf to edit my page in some sort of revenge. I do not know why Jossi felt the need to not contact you about posting contrary to what you stated on the BLP issue (and in support of the edit-warrers who refuse to follow notability guidelines) or why Jossi's friends are not repremanded for defacing my user page.

There is too much bias and too much POV at the Shane page and among many of the growing cabal (is there some other way to describe 6 people who edit different pages in favor of the same POV?), and it seems to be spilling over in the worse ways. From the original BLP Noticeboard entry on Shane, it seemed obvious that Jossi was not interested in furthering the NPOV principle of Wikipedia on the BLP page (as I put on the Shane talk page, there are many less notable and verifiable sources than the Toronto Sun which Jossi refused to remove). I do not know where I should put my complaint against Jossi, and any advice you can give me would surely be appreciated. SanchiTachi 06:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sanchi Tachi, this is a special case. A complaint has arisen on the OTRS system. Normally, I'd offer advice on this, however due to the fact that a) it's being handled on OTRS, and b) there is evidence of a conflict of interest on Frank Pais behalf, I ask that you just forget about this article. Leave it alone for the next....say month or two. Once it's off OTRS, we can come back to it. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Its hard to leave things alone when people randomly come to my page, call me neo-nazi, edit out things, etc etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AShane_Ruttle_Martinez&diff=132932773&oldid=132874440 I think this revision is important, if no one has caught it yet. Btw, I found a link involving a court case that verifies the Nerve video (which was the basis for Toronto Sun article) as being correct, unbiased, and independent of the parties involved. But yeah, I'm out. It seems that such pages like the Martinez should be just deleted based on poor sources (really, there isn't a strong source in any of the information, and the news articles "discussing" Martinez might have 6 or 7 word long quotes and thats it) and just for SOAP/POV fests. Meh. SanchiTachi 16:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

<snip> bunch of argument between User:SanchiTachi and User:Black as pitch</snip>

Seems to me he just likes being right and won't let it go until he is. If you want to accomplish something, just don't play his game. Make him answer your questions, instead of wikilawyering. Regardless, this isn't the place to argue the issue. It's under review, so just dropping it for now as Swatjester suggested would be best. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Resolved. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 11:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You might want to take a look

Seems our vandal wrote an apology on his talk page. I have no intention to unblock (and the autoblock has expired), but it's nice to see people sometimes understand they were out of line :). -- lucasbfr talk 10:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see. Well, if you want to unblock, no problem with me. I'm not holding out high hopes, but who knows, and besides an apology puts them better than 90% of the vandals on here. Resolved as far as I'm concerned.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 11:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Denny Crane strikes again! :) --ElKevbo 20:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Welcome! Resolved. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 08:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

Can you unlock my talk page or are you gonna be a dick about it?70.244.40.189 07:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well since you put it so nicely.....no. You were a dick there, you're a dick here, it doesn't give me much of an interest in unprotecting it. If you can prove that you'll be a constructive editor, then maybe. Resolved, pending class 3 cluebat striking. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 08:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah, thats okay, I'll just change IPs, just keep being a dick. I hope you like sucking on your own, thats if you got one. 70.244.40.189 20:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Block significantly extended, resolved. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

University High School

"the trolls won"? Look, I am interested in hearing your opinion on the matter, but I don't want to re-raise the issue if this is what I'm going to get, and that's a lot of what I got last time.

The article has been unprotected, per my request, since commenting stopped, and I reinserted the section--though I put in the finished section this time. Page protection gave me a chance to finish writing what I was in the middle of yesterday.

I'm not sure to what extent you're aware, but there were questions of specificity and NPOV raised before you raised the issue of whether or not the hs newspaper was a valid source. I think the rewritting of the section and the addition of new sources has taken care of this, but if you could weigh in on the matter without starting a revert war, etc., etc. that would be great.

I would also very much be interested in hearing your opinions on high school newspapers as sources. It took a while to get to what the root of your issue with the sources was (I'm still not quite sure I get it--you disbelieve whatever you read in a newspaper unless you know the level of oversight that exists or unless you otherwise know the information to be factually correct?) and so that wasn't really talked about. If you don't want to weigh in on the discussion I hope will exist, that's fine of course. I'd really like to know what you were getting at, but please, discussion not a revert war (you already followed WP:BOLD and it worked), and polite discussion.

You may also be interested in User:Miss Mondegreen/Uni sandbox. In this sandbox, I've duplicated the article and removed the high school newspaper sources when written by students (articles written by teachers or administrators I've allowed). I don't put in a fact tag if it was just a duplicate source, but everywhere else I put in a fact tag every place I removed one of these sources. In some places it's clear that the source is only necessary because I'm directly quoting someone quoted in the article, and that I could easily get the material I'm using elsewhere (like the descriptions of why the school is popular for filming at the top of the filming section). Anyway, this gives a good sense of what types of things we're using the newspaper for, though it should be noted here that every newspaper source written by a student was removed. So even if we decide they weren't a reliable source for factual information, we'd use these articles as sources for the complaining editorials made. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:20, May 26 2007 (UTC)


--Too busy to get involved with it. Plus, I think you misunderstood my issue: I have no problem with the high school newspaper per se: it's still an unreliable source. For things that are positive about the school, or neutral, that's fine, not ideal, but fine. For negative things, that's unacceptable.

Now for the quote that says there were editorials (i.e. that the editorials exist), the paper is obviously fine for that. But for the other things, it was not acceptable. You kept saying that you had another source. So put it in there, instead. Multiple sources is the key.

Finally, as to the prior NPOV word choice news, I saw them but figured they had been resolved, I don't really care about them, and think they are moot as they don't belong there without a reliable source anyway.

As for my view on student papers in general, at the K-12 or equivalent level, they cannot be considered a reliable source. As for my personal knowledge, any fact checked paper is reliable, and college student papers are inherently considered to be reliable. If they're not fact checked, it's not that I don't believe them, it's that I can't rely on it to be true. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 09:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I still don't get it. If it's not a reliable source, how come it's ok for things that are positive or neutral?
And what makes you believe that the paper isn't fact-checked? Or that college papers are? Besides, regardless of fact-checking, its opinions, positive or negative are the one thing that we can always source to wherever, as whether or not they were based on fact etc, they were opinions put forth by (wherever we're sourcing them from). As long as they're relevant, nothing else matters (for opinions).
I also just don't understand why you don't think a high school newspaper is a reliable source for facts like the school making 90,000 off of the drillbit taylor production, or a quote from so-and-so, simply because they are a high school newspaper.
Assume that we don't know anything about their production, and really, how many newspapers would you know about the production? You don't know what level of over-sight and fact-checking there is at a high-school newspaper, a college newspaper or a local newspaper. Unless you have information on how the paper is run, you're making a judgement on the basis of what you do know about the paper--it's circulation, who writes the pieces, etc. Here, the judgement being made is entirely on the basis that this is a high-school newspaper. Which I don't understand. I don't get why the words "high school" speak of such doom to facts etc. Especially in this case where we do know that there is oversight and adults treat it like a real paper. Administrators and teachers have used the paper as a platform themselves.
Anyway, if I'm reading your stance correctly, I still wind up confused. In your opinion, could we use the high school newspaper for facts? Can we trust them to interview correctly, and find out how much the school got paid, who paid for what, etc? Can we trust them to use their eyes and report back that the facade of the building was altered to read "McKinley High School"? Can we use those facts which do not reflect badly on the school? The thing that students and teachers did not complain about? Where is the paper reliable? Miss Mondegreen talk  20:30, May 26 2007 (UTC)
High school papers are not paid organizations. By default, they cannot have independent fact-checking. College papers are. If you really need to debate the difference in academic integrity between high school and college, well....I'd have to assume you haven't made it there yet. Honestly, I really have no more interest in discussing it with you further. If you don't get it by now, there's no way you'll ever get it. I don't wish to discuss this with you any further. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 21:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Swatjester

Smile a little, smile a little, all along the road;
Every life must have its burden, every heart its load.
Why sit down in gloom and darkness with your grief to sup?
As you drink Fate's bitter tonic, smile across the cup.

Smile upon the troubled pilgrims whom you pass and meet;
Frowns are thorns, and smiles are blossoms, oft for weary feet.
Do not make the way seem harder by a sullen face;
Smile a little, smile a little, brighten up the place.

Smile upon your undone labour; not for one who grieves
O'er his task waits wealth or glory; he who smiles achieves.
Though you meet with loss and sorrow in the passing years,
Smile a little, smile a little... even through your tears!

Ella Wheeler Wilcox


Have a beautiful day, dear Swatjester! :)

Phaedriel
17:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

SanchiTachi

You may be interested in participating in the WP:AN/I involving SanchiTachi. There is a need for more participation by admins.Finell (Talk) 05:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, checking it out. Resolved. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will stop posting over at that page. There is another wiki devoteed just to Warhammer (the two projects tend to shadow each other) and I am here solely to improve the Warhammer pages to contribute to their organization, as they are cited by many "info" sites. I am a doctoral student who uses Warhammer to blow off steam. As you can tell, disputes like this aren't really good. I am upset that Alison shrugged off my earlier raising of concerns about which page she blocked (and its troublesome when another admin removes said concerns about the action from the talk page). I will spend my time editing my sandbox. This is also one of the reasons why I left for three years (when push comes to shove, I care more about my dissertation and my degrees than Wikipedia). SanchiTachi 06:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's always good to be able to take off for a bit. School should always come first anyway. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey there. Thanks for offering to mentor, this looks really positive as I hate to see good editors in trouble. If you would like any assistance in the process, drop me a note - not that I think you need it, of course. :) --Edwin Herdman 06:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Swatjester:

Thank you for offering to mentor. I hope that SanchiTachi will accept guidance from you, where he has not accepted it from other admins or editors. At the same time I solicited your help with the WP:AN/I (and left the same message for several others), I also suggested on SanchiTachi's Talk page that he solicit the participation of other Wikipedians with whom he has had favorable experiences. He immediately deleted my message without reply. Here is the diff (note his edit comment): [2]

You might also want to point him to the following quotation that he features on his own User page:

Don't be a dick: "Don't be a dick" is the fundamental rule of all social spaces." "If you've been labeled as a dick, especially if you have been told this by several people in a particular community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true. If you suspect that you may be a dick, the first step is to become aware of it. Ask yourself what behavior might be causing this perception. Try changing your behavior and your mode of presentation. In particular, identify the harsh words in your communications and replace them with softer ones."

Thanks again. Finell (Talk) 06:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in, Jester. I tried to help, but met with unexpected hostility. I had nearly lost all hope. –Gunslinger47 07:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about your willingness to step in when it becomes a public matter, and your lack of participation otherwise. I posted on your talk page a while back about an issue regarding Sanchi, and got no response whatsoever. MSJapan 12:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help. As things seem to have calmed down I have started the ball rolling to find a solution that can be agreed on, so we can get the entry unlocked. [3] Thanks again. (Emperor 13:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Quick question (its probably not that quick): User:SanchiTachi/Graphic_Novels_Current. Its about 50% of the way to where the original page was intended. As you can see, it discusses the works produced under the title "graphic novels" (the publishing companies title) and the cross promotional minatures and roleplaying games produced to tie the fiction with the actual game. Should I just put up a new page for this? The "consensus" over at the previous page was that they wanted to make a new page on comics, leaving out a substantial portion of the gaming material. I still don't understand why I can't have a page with the easy title of the publisher's section (which is used both by the book store and the miniature store and cross promotioned on both) to deal with these. Plus, there are already individual pages describing the comics/novels as comics and novels, but it would be inappropriate to put in some of the gaming material on those pages (it really wouldn't make sense on a page discussing the work as a book). But yeah. I would appreciate your imput. SanchiTachi 02:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you've appointed yourself as Sanchi's mentor, I'll bring this to you. Sanchi has created the page he mentions above: see Black Library gaming (Warhammer 40,000). I thought about AfD'ing it as a content fork, but Emperor wants to give him a chance to make it into what the title describes, so I'll go with that. However, I would at least like to see some cooperation from Sanchi on minor things, such as the fact that his lead doesn't have a bolded title or a clear purpose, and the article is unnecessarily disambiguated. As I'm facing the same unwillingness to listen or cooperate, I'd like your help in this matter. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

He's actually being more cooperative now, so never mind on this. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, on some issues. He still insists I go through you for the constant bolding and ref columns. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[4] I believe that speaks for itself. Note: 1. Someguy came to the page and moved it like he did with the previous page without asking why it ws titled the way it was (because there is an obvious project expansion into the Warhammer fantasy version), 2. He started editing things wholesale without looking at changes and reput in broken wiki links, wrong sources, etc etc. 3. Adding a "ref column" 2 would not change anything, as one ref has 5 important authors and takes up a whole page on its own, invalidating a second ref column, but he refuses to understand that 4. He has threatened me with more rules, didnt ask the project for consensus/explanation of why it determined such things, and has acted in the rule of an admin and ignored and future consensus. SanchiTachi 23:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to address all my supposed violations, which I can tell you are quite false. I outlined my points on your talk page. I don't want to fight, I don't want to start this crap all over again, I just want to make it conform to guidelines without changing your text. Is it too much to ask that you listen to what I have to say, instead of me coming here to ask Swat to mediate something that should be clear as day? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
And SanchiTachi quickly expunged Someguy0830's post, which was headed Listen please, from his Talk page! Earlier, I credited SanchiTachi at Talk:List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels#Moving things forward with improving his behavior as follows: "Since the WP:AN/I, he has moderated his behavior, which is something that we should all welcome and should positively reinforce." His subsequent activity on that page shows that my remark was premature. He continues to delete from his Talk pages posts by other editors that plead with him to stop his disruptive behavior (this is evident by looking at his own edits of his Talk page). His behavior reflects a continued unwillingness to listen to others, to cooperate, to be WP:CIVIL, and to understand WP:OWN. List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels has a title that no one agrees with because it is protected, and it is still protected because of fear of what SanchiTachi will do to it once it is unprotected. Other Wikipedians are spending time contending with SanchiTachi that could be better employed in other contributions to Wikipedia. And SanchiTachi is wasting his own time in warring with other Wikipedians that could be better used contributing productively to Wikipedia or in useful pursuits. This is bad for Wikipedia and bad for SanchiTachi. Swatjester: I hope you are watching and will intervene. SanchiTachi needs guidance on how to behave productively in the Wikipedia community. Finell (Talk) 00:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
And now this: User:SanchiTachi#Liscencing Finell (Talk) 00:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

response

Sorry, I was doing research elsewhere

Ok first off: italics are correct. Sanchitachi did violate 3rr, over something stupid, and is blocked for 24 hours. It's a valid and appropriate block. Sanchi tachi was right that the word "games" should fall outside the italics. Finell: SanchiTachi may do almost whatever he wants with his talk page, including blanking things. That's perfectly acceptable. See elsewhere on my page, where I have removed a user's discussion because I frankly don't want to discuss it anymore. That's within any users right on their own talk page.

I'll check the licensing issue shortly.

Someguy: what is clear to you, may not be clear to others. Please try to remember this, it's a major aspect of assuming good faith. You believe you're right, SanchiTachi believes he is, you need to find out how to make it work to meet in the middle, not fight over it.

Bolding and other style issues are not something that needs or should be dealt with through me, nor should it be something you edit war over. I mean seriously, what the fuck. It's a freakin italic. Work it out. Consult outside opinions. File a WP:3O third opinion request. File a WP:RFC request (RFC's can be entirely civil and are good for articles like this that may not get a lot of outside viewers).

I note there is a lot of mentioning that SanchiTachi is getting riled up, and then calming down, and then rollercoasting like that. That should show you that he does have the capacity to be a good editor, and it's worth it for everyone's sanity to go the extra mile to keep everything calm, civil and collegial.

Finally, there's a lot of rules lawyering going on with both sides. Don't forget, there's an "ignore all rules" rule...I hate using it and I hate seeing others use it, but it IS valid sometime (sparingly). Throwing policy around at each other is annoying, and just exists to exacerbate problems. Please try and work things out WITHOUT using policy: common sense and judgement go a long way. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 10:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading this wrong, I see nothing wrong with his licensing. His most restrictive licensing is the GFDL, which is the default for any submission. However, he's choosing to release some of his contributions into the public domain, which is even more free content than the GFDL, it has no restrictions of any kind. Many users multi-license their contributions under the GFDL as well as CC-by-SA (which is quite similar to GFDL). I'll look into it further though. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 10:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


Regarding licensing: I looked into it a bit further. It IS feasible to dual license under PD and GFDL, however in 90% of instances on Wikipedia, your PD release will be inapplicable. This is because derivatives of GFDL works are themselves automatically GFDL works: this includes edits. Instances where you CAN release under PD include entirely new (non-derivative) works. [5]. Basically it works because the ARTICLES are GFDL, but the individual contributions are under whatever license the author chooses (I assume, up to the GFDL's level of restriction)

Basically what happens is this: SanchiTachi (ST) starts a page, all his edits are GFDL + PD. What he creates, anyone may freely do whatever they want with, per PD. ST's page is now edited by me. My edits are GFDL licensed only, and I edit one line. ST's original work is still PD. The new work is now GFDL, specifically my sentence. If my sentence were removed, we're left with the PD only text. Ok now backtracking lets say instead of editing, I just make a new paragraph. The page is still GFDL. My paragraph is GFDL. ST's paragraph ALONE (with my text removed) is still PD.

Very easy solution to all this: If you dislike GFDL, then multilicense under CC-by-SA, or if you don't like forward licenses, then just plain CC-by. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 13:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi Swatjester, are you willing to continue to moderate the discussion at Talk:Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them? Lots of new activity in the last couple days. Your contribution was very helpful last time around, hope you're still available. -Pete 17:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a look see, but I've got a lot of different things going on at the moment, so no promises. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the logo I uploaded and you are not supposed to touch my page. It is a sandbox page there for I can practice and edit my articles with out the fear or worring of someone messing with it.


--Muriness 21:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a fair use image with no fair use rationale. That fails to meet our criteria.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

SanchiTachi (talk · contribs) again

Hi SJ! SanchiTachi is up on ANI again as he's been blocked for 3RR and is requesting unblock. He's already been declined by Yamla and the blocking admin, Deskana, is at the end of their patience by the sound of things. I don't want to touch the guy for fear of accusations of who-knows-what, so I'm bringing it to your attention for review here - Alison ☺ 01:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Swatjester: Now two pages in article space are protected, which loocks out productive editors as well, because of this one user. An admin also protected SanchiTachi's own talk page becasue of his misconduct. And he is under a 24-hour block for 3RR. Can you please do something to to straighten out SanchiTachi? He is wasting too much many admins and other users time. Thanks. Finell (Talk) 02:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Gah...ok please drop me the relevant links here? ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 10:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
NM, I see. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 12:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

SJ - I know I said I'd hold off on filing that RfC but seriously, I think the time has come. Anyone else who was dishing out insults/attacks like this would have been blocked days ago. It cannot go on. Can you at least try to get through to them why this kind of behaviour is unacceptable, before they alienate the community any more than they have? - Alison ☺ 17:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead Alison. I think this is beyond what I can help mediate at this point. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
As the guy has now been indefblocked by Deskana and has decided to move to another wiki anyway, I think this is now very much over and there's little to be gained in bringing it any further. However, well done to you for your infinite patence with the guy and doing your best to try to get him to the table & to work with others. Well done! - Alison ☺ 13:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

future username

Please note: Once my arbitration finishes, I intend to change my username. I've already reserved the account: User talk:SierraSix. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane.

Dear Swatjester: If you don't mind my asking, why are you going to change your username? Finell (Talk) 18:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I've had this username in some form or another for almost 10 years, on AIM, over email, etc. I'm just getting a little tired of it, and I've wanted to move on to something different. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Finell (Talk) 21:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You have some nerve buster, Listen I am not close to being blocked at all because I did nothing wrong and if there was something wrong it wouldnt have taken so long for someone to take action for the logo to be removed or w/e and what your doing is abusing your administrative powers, I should report you

--Muriness 21:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you would have read the logo information you would have seen it was fine and that you didnt need to tamper with it. Give me the page to were I can report you because this is nonsene. Everytime I go to create a article it is always deleted.

--Muriness 01:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • If you wish to file a complaint about an administrator, you can do so at WP:ANI. However, may I suggest you try to keep it a little more civil than you've been to-date? - Alison ☺ 01:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:WelcomeG template

Ah, I didn't use Template:WelcomeGreen or a personalized welcome template at all. It was Template:WelcomeMenu.;) Btw, Swatjester, why didn't you use the WP:CHU process to have your username changed? (I know it's not my business anyway) Hope you have a great day! ~ Sincerely,PeaceNT 03:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I will be. I've got an arbitration case that I want to finish up before I use WP:CHU. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, the account under the name of SierraSix already exists since you create it, how would WP:CHU be possible? Do you intend to switch?? PeaceNT 14:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression that they can still do WP:CHU even if I've reserved the other username like that. If not, then I'll just make this a redirect to the other name. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh, if you're keen on that name perhaps you could request to change "User:SierraSix" to "User:Blahblah", then you would be free to change the name of your current account to "SierraSix" :) It isn't complicated, and of course you might think of something better than Blahblah since this name is already taken. PeaceNT 14:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there's plenty of ways I could go about it. It'll probably be a full month before I get the chance to do it, which is why I reserved the name, so nobody takes it in that time. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 15:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Block by Bishonen Against Ferrylodge Regarding Harassment

Hi Swatjester. Just FYI, I thought I'd mention to you that I have posted on this subject at ANI. Ferrylodge 13:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Where the top is

It's at the other end. ☺ Uncle G 10:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Handling of Unblock Request

Swatjester; the following is my "unblock" request:

Request reason: "(1)gross, deliberate breach of WP:AFD policy and procedures by User:Ben W Bell whose deletion was vandalism; my reverts were of vandalism - I was fully prepared to abide by due process - there is no limit to the number of times vandalism can be reverted;(2)biased administration that fails to enforce the policy as laid down, User talk:SqueakBox continued re-inserting the vandalism and breached the 3RR yet no action taken; (3) hysterical abuse by User:sony-youth (which persists after the block) indicates gross prejudice and abusive language by several others and combined with their ignoring of due process as laid out by Wiki policy means this whole thing was effectively a kangaroo court; no rules followed - except be myself, who was blocked.(Sarah777 07:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC))"

And your response:

Decline reason: "reason —No. Stop trolling and wait out your block. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)"

Could you please explain your behavior in this matter? You provided no reason, instead delivered a gratuitous abusive comment. The block was for 3RR, which was inadvertent as I believed I was reverting vandalism. It was not for "trolling". (Sarah777 00:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Your block was for 3RR. Your comments on your talkpage were trolling. Thus, I felt disinclined to unblock you, when you were referring to it as a "kangaroo court". Further claims of "biased administrators" make me even less likely to unblock you.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 03:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Miskin

Is this user was allowed to continue edit in any wiki area?(Block log states that he is allowed only in arbcom case).See Special:Contributions/Miskin and User talk:Miskin.Regards.Must.T C 14:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I don't really see anything against it. He's in an active arbcom case...he has to be on his best behavior. I think the arbcom only limitation was for the length of his block, that expired a while back. Were there not a case, he'd be unblocked by now, so it follows that his editing is likely not restricted. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 15:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I was the last blocking admin in the Miskin case. As his 1-week block for (disputed, see ArbCom) 3RR ended ages ago, he's free to edit what he likes, far as I'm concerned. He was unblocked early to participate in the ArbCom case with the proviso that he not edit anything else; something which he abided by to the letter - Alison ☺ 00:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, I think you should release all information that you have on the issue. I have never questioned your integrity as a sysop, but I do think that you have been misguided by off-wiki communications. The published e-mail is elucidating, as it contains patent lies about me being ready to support Miskin in "whatever he does or says". I don't support him as a person, but I do support a certain set of principles that I feel have been neglected in this case. I challenge anyone to provide evidence that I have ever interacted with that particular user either on- or off- Wikipedia, or, better still, that I understand what the Miskin-Mardavich dispute was about, let alone have held some sort of interest in its outcome. Actually, I had not been aware of Miskin's existence before he was blocked. As for NikoSilver, I recall to have polemicized with him (or, rather, with Yannismarou) once over a Macedonia-related issue, where I felt they had been unfair towards User:Dahn. That's about all I know about him. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff arbitration case

I have added mention of you at the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration case in relation to your recent deletion of two articles. As far as I am aware we have never spoken before and I am not aware of your edits or actions previous to this. I am not saying that the action mentioned on that page should occur, just that it is congruous to the proposal of the same action against me. violet/riga (t) 08:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment at the arbitration [6]. violet/riga (t) 22:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you re: User:71.112.115.55

I am writing to express deepest thanks for helping in this situation. I turned to ArbCom because I was getting desperate, in a "It's him or me" kind of way (I didn't raise that because I didn't want to seem like I was trying to force things to go my way). I have been absolutely puzzled by this trolling; not because of the trolling, per se, but because of its longevity and absolute obsession with me. I suppose it's always unnerving when a person exhibits unstable behavior directed at a person, but this has been odd behavior directed at me since March. Scribe has been a great help, and he has a lot of gratitude from me. But I was feeling the short blocks were not getting the IP to change their behavior, but focus it to WP:GAME policies and guidelines in more and more clever ways. As User:Thatcher131 pointed to a problem I was already encountering when trying to deal with each new IP manifestation of this User, that when I reported it to an admin, "Unfortunately, many admins who watch there will be unaware that this is an ongoing problem, and will react by suggesting that this is a content dispute that should be addressed by talking about it, or that it is not serious enough vandalism to block without first going through the warning levels." Exactly. What I needed I received, which was an unequivocal statement that this User is now banned, and a diff to show that regardless of what this User attempts to do, no matter the clever manner or gaming of policies and guidelines that make their trolling and vandalization not apparent, I can point to a conclusive judgment on them. This happened to day, when an admin e-mailed me about my reverting the IP's comments on my FA candidacy for Tompkins Square Park Police Riot (what the IP used as an example of my vandalizing on their talk page). This well-meaning admin wrote in an e-mail that my removal of this IP criticizing me and my "lies" as "Consider the act that the IP points to as vandalism by you. I hate to say it, but it looks like .... vandalism by you." I kept coming across this, and it was very frustrating, which is why I took so much time to reconstruct their relentless behavior in one location. So, I want to say thank you, thank you, thank you, for your help and understanding. This unbalanced behavior has been odd to witness, and to have myself be the focal point of it. It was also becoming too time-consuming and too frustrating when I have a lot of other things I want to contribute and work on with the website. I am also flattered by the admin suggestion; unfortunately, I don't think I have the best temperment for such a position (I don't know how you guys do it) and I relish focusing on using my creativity to improve the site. But I also have an artistic temperment. That said, Wikipedia's guidelines of behavior have not only improved my editing and relating on this website, but also in my own life. I find myself telling other people to "assume good faith" often ("Don't assume he didn't call you because he is playing games with you, assume good faith--maybe he's just really busy, or maybe someone died...you never know.") That's Wikipedia. Dave --David Shankbone 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. By all accounts you followed the right path to ArbCom. But realistically, you could have just requested a longer block at AN/I, or if that didn't work, contacting an admin on talk instead, before requesting arbitration. In arbitration, it would have taken at least a week to get the guy blocked, if not more, and that's VERY conservative. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777

Swatjester, I understand your concerns with Sarah777. As I understand, this advanced as a series of regrettable circumstances. Would you support an unblock on condition that you and Sarah drop your current issues? I've detailed my thoughts more at Sarah's talk page. Regards, Iamunknown 04:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So long as she stays off my talk page, sure. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I cannot speak for Sarah; I don't think, however, that a talk page ban would be constructive. I was in the middle of writing a small post to WP:ANI to leave this discussion open to other administrators. Are you okay with that? --Iamunknown 05:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it (AN/I) would be constructive. Your comments likely got the point through, as well as kuryhks. Either she gets the Clue (tm), or she won't and do something that gets her blocked indefinitely. I personally don't think that 48 hours is unreasonable given her history, but I also don't care. You unblock her, warn her to stay off my talk page. If she does, no foul. If not, she didn't learn, and has merited re-blocking. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I'm not an admin, so I can't.  :-P --Iamunknown 05:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I will then.

For the record though, I stand by my block decline reason, given the tone of her prior comments, and the tone of the unblock request. It would not have been good to unblock early given the demanding and aggressive tone, which was by definition trolling. The follow up harassment of me further solidified my opinion thereof, and when she reverted me on my own talkpage removing her comments after I made it quite clear that she was not welcome there, and then continued to bother me after an unambiguous demand to stay off my talk page, the block was clearly valid. I tried reason after the unblock. It didn't work. That's why I stopped responding here. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 05:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thank you.  :-) If you feel a block is warranted again, consider taking it to ANI (or maybe a separate administrator will simply see it and act), seeing as how you are now involved, okay? I just don't want more distress and cries of admin abuse, and I'm sure you don't either.  ;) --Iamunknown 05:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Wetterling

I don't know why you reverted my edit. The FBI suspect the same man took Jacob, so it is very much pertinent to the article. you might wanna read this.

Reverted per WP:BLP concerns. Other kids being sexually assaulted in the same area as Jacob at a different time, is not related to Jacob's biography, it is related to Jacob's kidnapping, were we to have an article on it (which we don't). ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Then, perhaps, the article should get a new name. Such as, The kidnapping of Jacob Wetterling. Fighting for Justice 08:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Which would be deleted for non-notability. Do not reinsert the information. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 08:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
How on earth can you say it is non-notability? There is an act that is named after him. If that's not notability then what is??? Fighting for Justice 08:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Jacob Wetterling is minorly notable, due to the law named after him, and the bridge in his honor. The act of his kidnapping, was not and would not merit an article. Please see this link, specifically point 10. Jacob Wetterling is not notable. Jacob's law is. That's why we have an article on Jacob's law. Jacob is given slight notability from the combination of being the subject of the law AND the creation of the bridge (on his own, he probably would not have made it). This other kid, however, is not notable in the slightest. Not to mention he is a minor, so his last name is not released, which means that publishing information on that is misleading because we're referring to a "Jared" who is not really identified.
You've been blocked before for WP:BLP concerns. Given your username, and your intent to present a POV "I always take the side of the victims"....you should really reconsider being a Wikipedia editor. Continuing along this path will very likely bring you in violation of WP:POINT, Wikipedia is not a battle ground, WP:INFO, and WP:BLP policies.⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 08:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to sleep now. I'll leave you with one thought: Just because we CAN have an article on someone, doesn't mean we SHOULD. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 08:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

But I never created the article. I was simply putting something back in because another person removed it for having no source. I found the source and I was citing it into the article. If Jacob himself isn't notable why has this article been here since May 2004?
Furthermore, what does my name have to do with the edit to Jacob Wetterling? Are you then saying you're on the side of the man who took Jacob? Because that's the only way I can see us arguing over my user name. I'm not advocating for Jacob. And my name simply means that criminals should be punished. I don't see why anyone should hold my statement against me. All sorts of users have boxes stating their religious view, sexual orientation and whole bunch of other stuff. Fighting for Justice 08:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A Question.

I know you edit the The Black Wall Street Records article, and I know you reverted the changes with non-notable members. However, someone keeps adding the current roster of artists with a source, even though they are not notable and do not have a Wikipedia page. What am I supposed to do? Should I leave the artists there or should I keep reverting? Thank you. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 22:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What a coincidence!

I was "just" about to email you regarding AK's nom, dear Swat! :) I'm working on a draft that I should have finished tomorrow. I'll post it at my userspace so the three of us can review it and retouch it, and you can add your co-nom there. Sounds ok to you, sweetie? Love, Phaedriel - 04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

TheDeciderDecides

It isn't obvious to me that the user in question violated WP:SOCK. You may want to take a look at his comments on his talk page and consider unblocking. (Possibly not since it looks like he was headed for an indef anyways). JoshuaZ 15:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious to me. Unblocking is up to you, I'm not going to do it. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave the situation to you then. JoshuaZ 03:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You

No, I will not leave this alone because I feel disrespected! And I did not disrupt anyone and the content I have here is sutable for wikipedia!

--Muriness 02:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You have received your answer. Continuing along this path is disruptive and will result in you being further blocked. Please just drop the issue, and spend some time reading up on our image policy. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: You

Your blocking me for no reason. I fell this is unfail and this is abuse and I will continue to fight untill fair actions are taken or until we come to an agreement. and as far as the policy goes, I have read it, have YOU red it lateley?

--Muriness 02:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. Continue to state your intent to be disruptive, and you will be blocked from editing. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I honestly only tried to help Muriness out because it appeared that he might have been getting frustrated originally. I don't believe that to be the case anymore. I guess you win some and you lose some. Slavlin 04:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Black Wall Street Records

04:09, 4 June 2007 Swatjester (Talk | contribs) (3,403 bytes) (→Artists - rv artists with no body of work)

All artists had cited sources refering to there signed status on The Black Wall Street Records, I suggest you revert this edit yourself as you have deleted the information for the reason "artists with no body of work". There are related pages for one artist, and the other two are to be made. But since the cited sources are evident pages are not neccesary for the input of those characters as they fall into the category The Black Wall Street Records.

04:12, 4 June 2007 Swatjester (Talk | contribs) (3,425 bytes) (tag)

Please give me your reason on why you thought it was neccesary to Block the editing due to one account of Vandalism, when the Vandalism had already been reverted by user User talk:Efil4tselaer: Resurrected

02:50, 4 June 2007 Efil4tselaer: Resurrected (Talk | contribs) (4,623 bytes) (rv vandalism with no imagination and horrid grammar.)

Im trying hard to believe that the two edits are not connected, but if they were then that is a serious misconduct on your behalf. I'll be eagerly awaiting your corrections.

KINGTEE 00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I semi protected the page due to an editwar. My revert of the non notable information was unconnected. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to see this: scroll down, this, look at his signature (link to "his" talk page) carefully (???), this (I don't understand this at all, was he joking maybe?), and especially this (unless I am mistaken, you are not allowed to do that until de dispute is resolved). I think he means well, but if he continues this kind of behaviour he can get in a bit of trouble. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 23:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh damn, I didn't want to get the guy indefinitely blocked... I have a question, how do you make other user pages like you have, one of them is "Swatjester/Main" and the other one is a regular user page. Second, would it be allowed if I had album reviews on my user page (not too much, just a paragraph per album...)? --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 02:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't get him blocked. His inappropriate behavior did it himself. In regards to your questions: Simply add a / to the end of your username (which is pretty long, you might want to try changing it to a shorter one at WP:CHU),and then title that whatever, so for instance if you wanted a reviews page, say User:Efil4tselaer: Resurrected/albums. In general you can do quite a bit with your user page, however keep in mind it's not a webhost or myspace or anything, so extensive "home pages" stuff that strays too far from the purpose of the encyclopedia isn't permitted. Your suggestion sounds fine though, it publically acknowledges any biases you may have on those articles. Be sure to wikilink them, and be sure not to make the same mistake the guy below did, do NOT use any fair-use images in your user space (it loses it's fair use status and then becomes a copyright violation). Any images you put in your user space must be a free license, something like GFDL, CC, or Public Domain (PD). If you need help with a userpage, there are plenty of people who usually help. I think there is a wikiproject for it somewhere. Or, steal somebody that you like's and then change it to be your own. That's what I did, I took User:IAMTHEEGGMAN's page and modified it from green to blue. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 02:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have a couple of questions. First, are you saying I can create an account just for album reviews like the example you gave (User:Efil4tselaer: Resurrected/albums)? Second, I am not sure what you mean by fair use images. Does that mean that I can't use the album covers that are being used for the respective albums' articles? --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 01:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you don't need to create a new account. You simply create a new Wikipedia user page (but do NOT register a new account, that is unnecessary), with a slash, and then the title. For example, my user name is Swatjester. So I've made Swatjester/main . The easiest way to do this is like this: make a wikilink on your current user page to the page you want to make. For example, add the following to your userpage: [[User:Efil4tselaer: Resurrected/albums]]. Then, that will make a redlink appear there. You will click on that redlink, and edit the page however you want. At the top, it automatically makes a link back to your user page. (all pages with a /whatever after it are considered subpages of whatever is before the slash). Once you are satisfied, you can return to your userpage, and delete the link, which is now blue, or move it wherever you want, or something. It's best to keep a record of what user-subpages you've created. Sometimes you forget.

As for your second question: Fair use images are copyrighted images. 99% of the time, this includes album covers. They are sometimes ok to use in articles, but they are never ok to use in userpages. So you will be unable to include pictures of the album covers. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So then I would have to upload album covers? So to make them free I would have to like e-mail the record label or something, ask them if it is OK to use the album cover, then do the fair-use thing? --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 01:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, images have to be uploaded. However the album covers are probably already uploaded on wikipedia. To be able to use them in your user space, the copyright owner would have to release them to Wikipedia under a free license, which also means that it would need to be verified by the Wikipedia permissions team. The odds of this happening are effectively zero. Your best bet is to just do the reviews without the album art. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

All right, thank you very much for taking the time to explain this whole thing to me. I appreciate it. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 01:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

AK's nom

Dear Swat, I've just made a nomination draft here - please have a look, tell me what you think, and feel free to retouch whatever you want. You may also write your co-nom statement as soon as you want. Have fun! :) Love, Phaedriel - 10:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Assist needed

I'm still getting notices from User:BetacommandBot about rationale even though the below tag is placed on the image and discussion pages. Example: Image:Goodwood Plantation rc04488.jpg. As you probably know, the Florida Memory Project template was discarded leaving many images either deleted or with notices.

Digital Image Information

This is a one of a kind unique digital image from The Florida Memory Project, Florida Department of State. It holds the archives' number of: 0000000. This image is needed to enhance and improve this article and no other representation exists.

Use: The use of photographs and other materials in the custody of the State Archives of Florida is governed by state law and, in some cases, by the terms of the donation agreement under which the Archives acquired the images. In accordance with the provisions of Section 257.35(6), Florida Statutes, "Any use or reproduction of material deposited with the Florida Photographic Collection shall be allowed pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (4), provided that appropriate credit for its use is given." Please contact the Archives if you have any questions regarding the credit and use of any material.

Florida Department of State State Library and Archives of Florida 500 S. Bronough St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 (850) 245-6700

What can be done? Need help from an administator. Noles1984 15:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I, or WP:AN. I don't touch Betacommandbot stuff with a 20 foot pole. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
OK... love the response! Noles1984 19:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Oh yEs itS caRly

Since Ryulong speedy deleted the images in contention, (effectively ending the dispute), I humbly ask the page be unprotected at your earliest convenience (squabble is over). -N 07:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 16:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Swatjester/archive9&oldid=1139338313"