Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
Here are some handy tips:
Jokermage " Timor Mentum Occidit" 02:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
This is in regards to your edits on the List of Half-Life 2 mods page. Please review what NPOV actually means, because that edit sure as hell ain't it. Thanks. -- Cyde Weys vote talk 03:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I am currently involved in a dispute over the Firearms 2 inclusion on this page. I maintain, and can factually verify, that the Firearms 2 team, stole the intellectual property ownership of that title from the original team. I was an administrator on the original Firearms forums. The dispute is well documented at [1] on the forums, however, several users in this section have deleted my edits pointing out that such a dispute exists. I will continue to fight to have the truth shown in an NPOV way, until such time that it is satisfactually shown. If you don't believe me, visit the World at War site forums, [2], and view the posts entitled "Brain Droppings" in the World at War subforum. Swatjester 03:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do not delete other users' comments again. That is against common Wikipedia etiquette. -- Cyde Weys vote talk 03:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
May I point out that even if your allegations are true that this development team is stealing from the previous development team, that does not affect whether or not Wikipedia can link to the mod. Please think of a good NPOV way to include this controversy on the List of Half-Life 2 mods page. (Revealing my POV...) And, for what it's worth, I'd just like to say that I spent a lot of time playing Firearms 1 back in the day (it was my favorite mod for HL1), and I do feel sympathy if a bunch of scallywags essentially stole it for Half-Life 2. I think my player name back then was Genre, if you remember me. I played a lot :-P Cyde Weys vote talk 03:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I deleted comments that were off topic for that section. They could be moved to another section, if you wished, but they have nothing to do with the subject at hand, which was the creation of a new page.
Might I also point out that I think we're just not connecting with our two poitns of view. You have me mislabelled: I don't want to delete the link to Firearms 2. The link deserves to be there, they've created a mod and it qualifies for inclusion whether it is legal or not. What I DO protest, however, is the modification of my comments describing the situation and where to find further information. Those comments were NPOV, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be added "Currently in an intellectual property dispute with the World at War team, who claims ownership to the Firearms mod name". That is neutral, does not favor either side, and accurately describes the situation. Yet, every time I try to include that, I'm attacked by other users, who blame me for bias, while conveniently ignoring their own (not you.) That was the original intent of my edits, however I've been having so much damn trouble with Wiki's operation timing out on me, or getting error pages tonight, that I've been having problems doing it properly, and I keep getting interrupted. Are you having this problem too?
By the way, I don't remember your name off top of my head, were you in a clan? Also, thanks for the work maintaining the list. Back to the original topic of the Talk post, would you be interested in helping create the page for World at War, since it's not advisable that I do it myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatjester ( talk • contribs)
First of all, you really shouldn't delete other user's comments on talk pages. If someone inserts off-topic nonsense in article pages then by all means get rid of it. But think of the talk pages as a sort of discussion board. Unless someone is blatantly vandalizing the talk pages or inserting patent nonsense, just let it stand. If your opponent in a disagreement over article comment is making all sorts of inane, stupid, and off-topic comments, and you delete them, you're actually helping him, because the outsiders looking over the debate won't see how crazy he is.
It's kind of iffy over whether the copyright dispute between the Firearms 2 and World at War dev teams belongs on the List of Half-Life 2 mods. It just seems sort of irrelevant. Maybe if you phrase it as placing doubt on the future of the Firearms 2 mod then it is relevant. Your wording is close to NPOV but terms like "claims ownership" are still kind of emotionally charged.
And yes, I was in a clan. It was one of the big ones. They ran the #1 server for a bit. And no, I don't remember the name. Sorry. If there's only a few clans that fit this description and you list it, I should be able to pick it out. And see Talk:List of Half-Life 2 mods as for why I don't think making an article on World at War is a good idea. -- Cyde Weys vote talk 04:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
See the
Talk:List of Half-Life 2 mods page for my response. I explain the WHOLE situation in depth there.
Pot, kettle, black: [3]. I reverted the edit because it was an edit, by you, of another user's comment. It's obviously a misspelling of "proven," and I saw no reason whatsoever for you to change it. I figured it was inadvertent and thus reverted it back to the way the user had originally left their comment. Avriette 00:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh, what the hell are you talking about? I didn't edit that. I made a remark about Gonif still being around, on the talk page. You deleted it for no reason. I didn't edit anyones comment. Swatjester 00:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Avriette, why don't you take a step back and look at what happened before calling me a nubcake (for someone who works at Microsoft, this may take WAY too much intelligence for you).
I added a comment to the talk section regarding 111!!!11one. My comment says "Gonif is still around. He plays DR". You reverted back and deleted that, on a talk page no less. That is bad form for 2 reasons: reason 1, you don't delete other people's talk comments. reason 2, you don't revert talk pages except for blatant vandalism. Furthermore, now you come onto my talk page and insult me (personal attacks are against wikipedia policy) and then start blabbering about some random edits that have nothing to do with my one small little section.
Looks like YOU messed up. I'll accept your apology. Swatjester 00:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
As the abovementioned link clearly shows, the comment is by Ferkelparade. Your edit changed that user's comment, the word "broven" to "br oven". As I said, it was probably inadvertent on your part. It does seem that you left a comment on the page, and I did miss that. And while you are in fact new, "nubcake" is not derogatory. Furthermore, in light of the article being edited, I figured it was appropriate. For contrast, implying that I'm not smart enough to accomplish something is in fact a personal attack. However, I am not really one to care. If you feel the need to edit comments of other users, you will eventually find that other users will complain to you as well. Really, this is kind of blown out of proportion for what happened. Look at the edit comment. I clearly stated that I didn't know why the change had been made, and reverted it. Simply saying "you reverted a comment I made" would have alerted me to what happened. Avriette 00:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
And that's exactly what I did. I said "Please don't delete talk page comments that are not yours." I still fail to see how you missed my entire sentence while reverting, but maybe that's because when reverting I use the +diff tool option. I therefore have not edited other users comments (the spacebar was inadvertant). Swatjester 01:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Depends. On the templates page it has a "please add comments to top/bottom" template choice. I didn't see one on your page, so I put it where it was easiest for me. Swatjester 01:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thank you, I'm well enough familiar with it as is. Customs such as "not personally attacking" will probably become familiar to you as you progress, judging from the history on your talk page you've had some trouble with that.
Swatjester
01:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC).
Sorry for the much delayed comment, I was a bit busy. To make something like that, type {{unsigned|USER WHO MADE COMMENT}}, so for instance, {{unsigned|Swatjester}} becomes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatjester ( talk • contribs) when you click "Save page". I hope this helps. There are other unsigned templates out there, but I forget exactly what they are, and this should serve you well enough. Don't hesitate to ask more questions, it is how we all learn things. Cheers. -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but on that note you have to know who the user was in the first place right? I was just hoping you could put in {{unsigned}} and it automatically would figure it out. So how do you track down the user name? Swatjester 21:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this comment on Jason Gastrich's talk page, and I'm assuming that "other user's" talk page you found him through was mine. Please don't fall for his cries of persecution. If it seems like everyone is ganging up on him, it's because his actions were so outrageous that no rational people could agree with him. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. Jason Gastrich has, among other things, used sockpuppets to vote on AfDs, recruited meatpuppets to vote on AfDs, sent emails to various Wikipedia members urging to vote on AfDs, filing over a dozen bad faith retaliatory AfDs, etc. I just thought you'd want to see the whole picture before you rushed to judgment on Gastrich. By the way, can't wait for World at War! -- Cyde Weys 06:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, it appears that you have already seen the RFC. Just wondering if that amends your comment on Gastrich's talk page at all. -- Cyde Weys 06:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
clearly is the result of the Iraq invasion, there is no way to deny it. People are dying every day from terrorist attacks not known to Iraq before the invasion. Please use the discussion page if you have any comment to make. Condescending language like "Anon's have no respect when it comes to reverting NPOV changes" which was your edit summary when you deleted "unprecedented terrorism" speaks poorly of you when the talk page shows others have exchanged thoughts already. What POV do you suspect by the way? It is a plain fact that there is terrorism in Iraq now that did not exist before. 84.59.108.128 14:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I made some big chops to the recon battalion page. Take a look and edit as you see fit. I saw it in your Watchlist.-- Looper5920 23:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest against reporting that anonymous user for 3RR as you have violated 3RR yourself. It doesn't matter if one person thinks they are on the correct side of the issue; anyone reverting more than three times, no matter what the content, is in violation of 3RR. The only exception is for vandalism, but this isn't vandalism here, it's a content dispute. -- Cyde Weys 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
From the 3rr page: "The three revert rule is not generally considered to apply to reversions of simple vandalism by users who are waiting for a sysop to block the IP, of course" I view this as vandalism as this user isn't even attempting to acheive a consensus on the subject and is evading through multiple IPs, as well as deleting the warnings from his talk pages. Swatjester 01:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you consider "vandalism", it matters what the admins consider vandalism. And they aren't going to consider this vandalism. This is a content dispute over a very contentious subject. I'm trying to warn you that, should an admin get involved with this, both you and the anon are going to be blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. -- Cyde Weys 01:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
TBH, if I get blocked for 24 along with the anon, doesn't really bother me. I've been posting about it on the talk page, and I'm about to post a once and for all request for consensus on the talk page on the topic. I've done what I can to stop an anon from pushing pov content, and whether the administrators can see that or not, doesn't really matter to me. I know I did the right thing.
Having said that, I've temporarily removed my requests based on Cyde's advice, pending a "request for consensus" i've asked for on the talk page. I urge anyone reading this to vote so we all know what the community wants. Swatjester 01:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Much better. The point of WP:3RR is to prevent an unfortunate circumstance that is very harmful to Wikipedia: revert warring. Consensus-finding is the preferred resolution to revert wars (and preferable over reporting for 3RR, which just temporarily blocks users but doesn't solve anything). -- Cyde Weys 02:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry that I get a different IP every time I log in. It is only one per day and I do not think you have difficulties to determine that it is always the same person you are dealing with. What do you think does it show if you report others for "vandalism" when you repeatedly deleted factual information, reverted ignoring discussion and made condescending edit summaries? 84.59.87.214 18:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The first thing you need to do is get an account so we know we're talking to the same person. Also, anonymous users tend not to be taken seriously, especially if they don't even have a static IP address. -- Cyde Weys 19:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Please see Stephen Jay Gould's seminal essay Evolution as Fact and Theory. Also, I'm now curious .. where do you fall on this issue, anyway? -- Cyde Weys 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Swatjester, just read at the Iraq invasion page that you participated in the war. Would you like to tell me a little about it? I am very much interested because I would really like to know what it is like for a soldier today. I am from Germany and have read a lot of literature e.g. by Heinrich Böll or Wolfgang Borchert about how wrong it felt back then to fight in an unjust war. As there was heavy opposition to the Iraq war all over the world I would like to know if there were US soldiers who had such feelings, too? I have recently seen the movie Jarhead about the first Gulf war. To me that war was a liberation of Kuwait, and even if there were dubious circumstances like the propaganda lie by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States about being a nurse and having seen Iraqis stealing incubators and throwing Kuwaiti babies on the floor. However, even then it seems many soldier did not feel so sure about what they were doing. I have the impression that the recent Iraq war was seen as a just war in the US, the only country known where the population supported the war. I once saw an interview with one of the soldiers who fired on the Palestine hotel killing journalists and he stated that unlike the whole TV watching world he did not even know that such a hotel with journalists existed. Opinion polls showed that a majority of the US population even thought that Saddam was to be blamed for 9/11 in spite of clear evidence that no Iraqi was involved in the attacks. Has the attitude to the war since changed? I hope that you are ok with my question and am very much looking forward to hear from you. Please feel free to be straightforward in your reply. If you tell me that the war was good because Saddam was killing his people I disagree but I am completely ok with exchanging conflicting points of view. Get-back-world-respect 18:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
no worries; thanks for the apology :) - csloat 23:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
On my Talk page, you posted:
Mr. Billion, please stop reverting the cleanup, consolidation, and shortening of the article. nothing is being deleted, just moved to sub-pages to get the article down to an appropriate size. Swatjester 16:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your meaning. I've only edited that article once in the past two weeks. -- Mr. Billion 23:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Really? Interesting. That's not waht the anonymous claimed. Next time I will verify before I accuse. You might want to remind him that you can speak for yourself, since he's implying you've been participating in the edit war. Swatjester 05:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I see that, for some reason, you removed my comment on the Iraq Invasion article:
I see that you were/are a soldier. But my comment was a joke since both pookster and I are/were Marines. Wouldn't want to be mistaken for a doggie but rather a Devil Dog (or Dawg) as the case may be.
I'm curious why you removed my comment on the discussion page. Dawgknot 20:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I see you have been doing it also but keep an eye out for User:67.177.59.114 He is the one adding all of the DOD links to every military page so he can slip in the two links for the infantry web forums that do not belong anywhere except for the infantry page. Thanks fot the help-- Looper5920 10:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW I never knew you created all those Marine Air pages....good job! Swatjester 15:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Just a heads up, User:Get-back-world-respect is rounding up the lynch mob on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article.
DTC 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't really care. My only problem was with the anon. I take a little offense to the idea however, GBWR, that I exclusively write the article. My presence on this page is here for two issues: I edited the "results" tab, and I stayed here to help combat the anon IP's vandalism. Swatjester 02:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I should mention that my chief interest in the article now is not the content, but rather sub-article linking everything to reduce size. Pookster is all for that, hence my past support for him. Swatjester 10:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Which questions am I not answering? Furthermore, not deleting others comments on their talk pages is considered good wikiquette. It may actually be policy, I'm not clear on that though. The IP's vandalism is well established by multiple users other than myself his RfC page. Let me find the link. Swatjester 02:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Rfc link [17]. To wit:
"1. Can this user be treated as a vandal? Robert McClenon 19:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
2. In agreement and concur with editor McClenon that the user should be treated as a vandal. Gwyllgi 15:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)"
Also the users amazing 17RR violation is documented with diffs there. Is that good enough? Swatjester 03:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me be very clear GetBackWorld Respect....if you post misrepresenting information about me on multiple users talk spaces, then delete my protest about it on your talk page, then delete my protest to your deletions, and finally delete my warning templates on your talk page, I WILL submit your name on the vandalism list. This is what we call "bad faith", and you're exemplifying it right now. By deleting my comments, you are misrepresenting me, and any comments about me, out of context. This is bad faith, and is against wikipedia policy. User talk pages do not belong to the owner. Only user pages do. As for the pookster accusations, I must have missed that. And as for myself, you specifically mentioned me in your comments as "Dominating" the article, which is patently untrue. Your retaliatory stance is not contributing to anything but further problems. Swatjester 03:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm copying this to your talk. Swatjester 03:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Your talk page is not yours. I notice you ironically deleted my post citing no less than 6 wikipedia policies and guidelines supporting my point. I warned you what's up. Deleting user talk warnings is vandalism as per policy, and I've cited you as such. This is my last edit for the night, carry on as you will. I'll return tomorrow evening. Swatjester 03:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Finlay is the only one. Nlu told me to post it there.
Swatjester
00:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. I've got more important things to worry about than your coverups, and I'm getting ready to archive this page.
Swatjester
02:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
My appologies. I do know 3RR and personally adhere to Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. However, if I exceeded 3RR I belief it was justified under WP:RPA policy especially given the nature of the personal attacks that I was removing. I really need some assistance in handling this better if it comes up again. ArbCom will probably be assigning mentors to the various editors on this page (soon I hope). I'd really appreciate your advice on handling resolving these conflicts better in the future. -- Comaze 10:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the message, and I shall surely try to give my inputs. Firstly, let me read the earlier comments. OK. And, I wish you all the best in your aspiration to become an administrator - as it is said: this is not a big thing. -- Bhadani 15:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I can help mediate the proceedings and provide some second opinion to the dispute(s) at hand. Just drop me a message so I know where/when I'm needed.
Cheers, -- Madchester 15:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't say that I've gotten seriously into the issue you mentioned, but from the little I've read it's an issue being edited by seriously contentious people. As such, feelings are most likely very high-strung. In that case, there's gonna be all sorts of mud-flinging against everybody, including non-partisan outsiders. When that happens, it's more constructive to "take the crap" - so to speak, and not let yourself get seriously upset. Threatening people by saying "If both sides choose to continue to personally attack me [...] I'm warning you right now, I'll take every action available to me" will not really bring the issue anywhere.
As for the article-issue itself, I would try to tread very softly, and try to gently imply to NLP propents that they have to accept that certain people claim that NLP is pseudoscience, and to NLP detractors that they can't "taint" NLP by language usage, every claim has to be sourced - if someone says it's a cult, quote them, and don't use weasel words, etc.
But as I said, I haven't gotten seriously into the issue... — Gabbe 16:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
TBH, I was more interested in getting the parties to debate the issue with each other than your advice in the 2nd paragraph, but on second look it looks like good advice. Thanks. I haven't gotten int the issue either, cause I don't really know anything about NLP, I've just edited typos in the article. Swatjester 17:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing in the NLP page. However I would like to urge you to tread carefully. I had very bad experience with that page. I don't think the issue there is about whether NLP is pseudoscience or not. I think there are people exhibiting troll like attention seeking behaviour. So it is there intention to insult people to get them into edit wars and online flamming. I would urge you not to acknowledge or respond to any posting that deviates from the Wikiepedia guidelines. Unfortunately, current mediation is not working as there isn't any signs of consistent proactive mediation from Wikipedia admin. So, don't expect arcoms to take any action. It will be a waste of your time trying to argue with them. But feel free to delete all insulting postings from the talk page.-- Dejakitty 17:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well you are right. But if you leave all the insults on the talk page, then the entire page will act as an gigantic flamme bait. Ideally, this should be done by the admin mediator consistently based on wikipedia guidelines. I don't think we need a lot of mediators. We just need one good mediator to take on a leadership role who is proactive tough and firm and is prepared to do the following:
If we can find an admin who is prepare to do this, I am sure the problem will go away in no time. Let me know if you find one. -- Dejakitty 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Those who flame on the talk page continuously will be warned, and if they don't stop, the proper process goes on them.
1) agreed.
2) No. That won't help the dispute, only incite tensions between those who don't like the frozen version.
3) You can already do that on your own.
4) Violation of wikipedia policy.
5) As a mediator, I won't get involved in the editing.
6) Yes. Working on it.
7) When appropriate.
I've got admins here to watch it. But one doesn't have to be an admin to be a mediator. Swatjester 18:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I have asked admin to watch the page in the past but he/she ended up having an edit war with one of the editors and gave up the page soon afterwards. In theory anyone can engage in mediation, but I wouldn't advise you not to do so at this stage. Any attempt in mediation will very likely turn into troll food. That guy on the NLP page is very skillful at pushing boundaries and manipulate mediators and admins. -- Dejakitty 18:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well thus far Bhagdani, Gabbe, Madchester, and KillerChihuahua are watching the page. While I don't know the first 3 well, KillerChihuahua has explicitly stated that he will not engage in the article nor does he have any interest too. If nobody tries to mediate, nobody will succeed. If I fail, so what. It's the internet. I'll go out tonight, have a beer, and go to sleep without caring about it. Swatjester 18:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to let VoiceofAll know that you have requested further admin backup as a matter of courteousy. He is an admin semi-involved in the NLP page, though he is not very active at the moment. If admins are too reluctant to deal with the situation, then I don't think there is anything we can do about it, apart from just be grateful that these are iternet trolls, not real-life terrorist. -- Dejakitty 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Sup SJ. I was in 124th originally, before I went over to LRS. Did you know 1sgt Marks? He came over a year or so after me, is our 1sgt now. Also, I went to SOA for about a few weeks. Leppy 20:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
1sg marks? nope. I'm in 3rd bat up in tallahassee. I've been under 1sg Nunn, 1sg simmons, and currently 1sg crisler in my time. Swatjester 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Leppy hmm....any relation to the Rachel Lepara, or Christina Smith? Swatjester 20:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
least you tried. :) Oddly enough, since the Danes are the ones getting the bad press because of that cartoon nonsense ::insert eye roll here::, when I saw 'hammertime', instead of good ol' M.C. himself, I went off on some mental heathen tangents and came up with some utterly hilarious pictures in my head (think þórr and Mjollnir). Anyway, just thought I would let you know that at least *one* of us reading the page found your effort to be a very pleasant diversion from the babbling and howling. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Swatjester. I apologize for the delay in my response. I'll be happy to take a look in on your mediation attempt, but I doubt that I'll be bale to assist all that much (my academic life has become very demanding over the past year or so). Good luck with your work: my understanding is that neuro-linguistic programming has a bit of a history of disagreements. – Clockwork Soul 19:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I really shouldn't edit when I don't know what I am talking about. Broken Segue
Hey I don't know either, I was just making an educated guess based on grammar principles. Swatjester 15:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
Here are some handy tips:
Jokermage " Timor Mentum Occidit" 02:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
This is in regards to your edits on the List of Half-Life 2 mods page. Please review what NPOV actually means, because that edit sure as hell ain't it. Thanks. -- Cyde Weys vote talk 03:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I am currently involved in a dispute over the Firearms 2 inclusion on this page. I maintain, and can factually verify, that the Firearms 2 team, stole the intellectual property ownership of that title from the original team. I was an administrator on the original Firearms forums. The dispute is well documented at [1] on the forums, however, several users in this section have deleted my edits pointing out that such a dispute exists. I will continue to fight to have the truth shown in an NPOV way, until such time that it is satisfactually shown. If you don't believe me, visit the World at War site forums, [2], and view the posts entitled "Brain Droppings" in the World at War subforum. Swatjester 03:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do not delete other users' comments again. That is against common Wikipedia etiquette. -- Cyde Weys vote talk 03:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
May I point out that even if your allegations are true that this development team is stealing from the previous development team, that does not affect whether or not Wikipedia can link to the mod. Please think of a good NPOV way to include this controversy on the List of Half-Life 2 mods page. (Revealing my POV...) And, for what it's worth, I'd just like to say that I spent a lot of time playing Firearms 1 back in the day (it was my favorite mod for HL1), and I do feel sympathy if a bunch of scallywags essentially stole it for Half-Life 2. I think my player name back then was Genre, if you remember me. I played a lot :-P Cyde Weys vote talk 03:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I deleted comments that were off topic for that section. They could be moved to another section, if you wished, but they have nothing to do with the subject at hand, which was the creation of a new page.
Might I also point out that I think we're just not connecting with our two poitns of view. You have me mislabelled: I don't want to delete the link to Firearms 2. The link deserves to be there, they've created a mod and it qualifies for inclusion whether it is legal or not. What I DO protest, however, is the modification of my comments describing the situation and where to find further information. Those comments were NPOV, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be added "Currently in an intellectual property dispute with the World at War team, who claims ownership to the Firearms mod name". That is neutral, does not favor either side, and accurately describes the situation. Yet, every time I try to include that, I'm attacked by other users, who blame me for bias, while conveniently ignoring their own (not you.) That was the original intent of my edits, however I've been having so much damn trouble with Wiki's operation timing out on me, or getting error pages tonight, that I've been having problems doing it properly, and I keep getting interrupted. Are you having this problem too?
By the way, I don't remember your name off top of my head, were you in a clan? Also, thanks for the work maintaining the list. Back to the original topic of the Talk post, would you be interested in helping create the page for World at War, since it's not advisable that I do it myself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatjester ( talk • contribs)
First of all, you really shouldn't delete other user's comments on talk pages. If someone inserts off-topic nonsense in article pages then by all means get rid of it. But think of the talk pages as a sort of discussion board. Unless someone is blatantly vandalizing the talk pages or inserting patent nonsense, just let it stand. If your opponent in a disagreement over article comment is making all sorts of inane, stupid, and off-topic comments, and you delete them, you're actually helping him, because the outsiders looking over the debate won't see how crazy he is.
It's kind of iffy over whether the copyright dispute between the Firearms 2 and World at War dev teams belongs on the List of Half-Life 2 mods. It just seems sort of irrelevant. Maybe if you phrase it as placing doubt on the future of the Firearms 2 mod then it is relevant. Your wording is close to NPOV but terms like "claims ownership" are still kind of emotionally charged.
And yes, I was in a clan. It was one of the big ones. They ran the #1 server for a bit. And no, I don't remember the name. Sorry. If there's only a few clans that fit this description and you list it, I should be able to pick it out. And see Talk:List of Half-Life 2 mods as for why I don't think making an article on World at War is a good idea. -- Cyde Weys vote talk 04:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
See the
Talk:List of Half-Life 2 mods page for my response. I explain the WHOLE situation in depth there.
Pot, kettle, black: [3]. I reverted the edit because it was an edit, by you, of another user's comment. It's obviously a misspelling of "proven," and I saw no reason whatsoever for you to change it. I figured it was inadvertent and thus reverted it back to the way the user had originally left their comment. Avriette 00:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Uh, what the hell are you talking about? I didn't edit that. I made a remark about Gonif still being around, on the talk page. You deleted it for no reason. I didn't edit anyones comment. Swatjester 00:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Avriette, why don't you take a step back and look at what happened before calling me a nubcake (for someone who works at Microsoft, this may take WAY too much intelligence for you).
I added a comment to the talk section regarding 111!!!11one. My comment says "Gonif is still around. He plays DR". You reverted back and deleted that, on a talk page no less. That is bad form for 2 reasons: reason 1, you don't delete other people's talk comments. reason 2, you don't revert talk pages except for blatant vandalism. Furthermore, now you come onto my talk page and insult me (personal attacks are against wikipedia policy) and then start blabbering about some random edits that have nothing to do with my one small little section.
Looks like YOU messed up. I'll accept your apology. Swatjester 00:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
As the abovementioned link clearly shows, the comment is by Ferkelparade. Your edit changed that user's comment, the word "broven" to "br oven". As I said, it was probably inadvertent on your part. It does seem that you left a comment on the page, and I did miss that. And while you are in fact new, "nubcake" is not derogatory. Furthermore, in light of the article being edited, I figured it was appropriate. For contrast, implying that I'm not smart enough to accomplish something is in fact a personal attack. However, I am not really one to care. If you feel the need to edit comments of other users, you will eventually find that other users will complain to you as well. Really, this is kind of blown out of proportion for what happened. Look at the edit comment. I clearly stated that I didn't know why the change had been made, and reverted it. Simply saying "you reverted a comment I made" would have alerted me to what happened. Avriette 00:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
And that's exactly what I did. I said "Please don't delete talk page comments that are not yours." I still fail to see how you missed my entire sentence while reverting, but maybe that's because when reverting I use the +diff tool option. I therefore have not edited other users comments (the spacebar was inadvertant). Swatjester 01:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Depends. On the templates page it has a "please add comments to top/bottom" template choice. I didn't see one on your page, so I put it where it was easiest for me. Swatjester 01:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thank you, I'm well enough familiar with it as is. Customs such as "not personally attacking" will probably become familiar to you as you progress, judging from the history on your talk page you've had some trouble with that.
Swatjester
01:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC).
Sorry for the much delayed comment, I was a bit busy. To make something like that, type {{unsigned|USER WHO MADE COMMENT}}, so for instance, {{unsigned|Swatjester}} becomes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swatjester ( talk • contribs) when you click "Save page". I hope this helps. There are other unsigned templates out there, but I forget exactly what they are, and this should serve you well enough. Don't hesitate to ask more questions, it is how we all learn things. Cheers. -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, but on that note you have to know who the user was in the first place right? I was just hoping you could put in {{unsigned}} and it automatically would figure it out. So how do you track down the user name? Swatjester 21:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this comment on Jason Gastrich's talk page, and I'm assuming that "other user's" talk page you found him through was mine. Please don't fall for his cries of persecution. If it seems like everyone is ganging up on him, it's because his actions were so outrageous that no rational people could agree with him. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. Jason Gastrich has, among other things, used sockpuppets to vote on AfDs, recruited meatpuppets to vote on AfDs, sent emails to various Wikipedia members urging to vote on AfDs, filing over a dozen bad faith retaliatory AfDs, etc. I just thought you'd want to see the whole picture before you rushed to judgment on Gastrich. By the way, can't wait for World at War! -- Cyde Weys 06:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind, it appears that you have already seen the RFC. Just wondering if that amends your comment on Gastrich's talk page at all. -- Cyde Weys 06:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
clearly is the result of the Iraq invasion, there is no way to deny it. People are dying every day from terrorist attacks not known to Iraq before the invasion. Please use the discussion page if you have any comment to make. Condescending language like "Anon's have no respect when it comes to reverting NPOV changes" which was your edit summary when you deleted "unprecedented terrorism" speaks poorly of you when the talk page shows others have exchanged thoughts already. What POV do you suspect by the way? It is a plain fact that there is terrorism in Iraq now that did not exist before. 84.59.108.128 14:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I made some big chops to the recon battalion page. Take a look and edit as you see fit. I saw it in your Watchlist.-- Looper5920 23:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest against reporting that anonymous user for 3RR as you have violated 3RR yourself. It doesn't matter if one person thinks they are on the correct side of the issue; anyone reverting more than three times, no matter what the content, is in violation of 3RR. The only exception is for vandalism, but this isn't vandalism here, it's a content dispute. -- Cyde Weys 01:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
From the 3rr page: "The three revert rule is not generally considered to apply to reversions of simple vandalism by users who are waiting for a sysop to block the IP, of course" I view this as vandalism as this user isn't even attempting to acheive a consensus on the subject and is evading through multiple IPs, as well as deleting the warnings from his talk pages. Swatjester 01:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you consider "vandalism", it matters what the admins consider vandalism. And they aren't going to consider this vandalism. This is a content dispute over a very contentious subject. I'm trying to warn you that, should an admin get involved with this, both you and the anon are going to be blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR. -- Cyde Weys 01:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
TBH, if I get blocked for 24 along with the anon, doesn't really bother me. I've been posting about it on the talk page, and I'm about to post a once and for all request for consensus on the talk page on the topic. I've done what I can to stop an anon from pushing pov content, and whether the administrators can see that or not, doesn't really matter to me. I know I did the right thing.
Having said that, I've temporarily removed my requests based on Cyde's advice, pending a "request for consensus" i've asked for on the talk page. I urge anyone reading this to vote so we all know what the community wants. Swatjester 01:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Much better. The point of WP:3RR is to prevent an unfortunate circumstance that is very harmful to Wikipedia: revert warring. Consensus-finding is the preferred resolution to revert wars (and preferable over reporting for 3RR, which just temporarily blocks users but doesn't solve anything). -- Cyde Weys 02:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry that I get a different IP every time I log in. It is only one per day and I do not think you have difficulties to determine that it is always the same person you are dealing with. What do you think does it show if you report others for "vandalism" when you repeatedly deleted factual information, reverted ignoring discussion and made condescending edit summaries? 84.59.87.214 18:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The first thing you need to do is get an account so we know we're talking to the same person. Also, anonymous users tend not to be taken seriously, especially if they don't even have a static IP address. -- Cyde Weys 19:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Please see Stephen Jay Gould's seminal essay Evolution as Fact and Theory. Also, I'm now curious .. where do you fall on this issue, anyway? -- Cyde Weys 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Swatjester, just read at the Iraq invasion page that you participated in the war. Would you like to tell me a little about it? I am very much interested because I would really like to know what it is like for a soldier today. I am from Germany and have read a lot of literature e.g. by Heinrich Böll or Wolfgang Borchert about how wrong it felt back then to fight in an unjust war. As there was heavy opposition to the Iraq war all over the world I would like to know if there were US soldiers who had such feelings, too? I have recently seen the movie Jarhead about the first Gulf war. To me that war was a liberation of Kuwait, and even if there were dubious circumstances like the propaganda lie by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States about being a nurse and having seen Iraqis stealing incubators and throwing Kuwaiti babies on the floor. However, even then it seems many soldier did not feel so sure about what they were doing. I have the impression that the recent Iraq war was seen as a just war in the US, the only country known where the population supported the war. I once saw an interview with one of the soldiers who fired on the Palestine hotel killing journalists and he stated that unlike the whole TV watching world he did not even know that such a hotel with journalists existed. Opinion polls showed that a majority of the US population even thought that Saddam was to be blamed for 9/11 in spite of clear evidence that no Iraqi was involved in the attacks. Has the attitude to the war since changed? I hope that you are ok with my question and am very much looking forward to hear from you. Please feel free to be straightforward in your reply. If you tell me that the war was good because Saddam was killing his people I disagree but I am completely ok with exchanging conflicting points of view. Get-back-world-respect 18:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
no worries; thanks for the apology :) - csloat 23:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
On my Talk page, you posted:
Mr. Billion, please stop reverting the cleanup, consolidation, and shortening of the article. nothing is being deleted, just moved to sub-pages to get the article down to an appropriate size. Swatjester 16:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your meaning. I've only edited that article once in the past two weeks. -- Mr. Billion 23:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Really? Interesting. That's not waht the anonymous claimed. Next time I will verify before I accuse. You might want to remind him that you can speak for yourself, since he's implying you've been participating in the edit war. Swatjester 05:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I see that, for some reason, you removed my comment on the Iraq Invasion article:
I see that you were/are a soldier. But my comment was a joke since both pookster and I are/were Marines. Wouldn't want to be mistaken for a doggie but rather a Devil Dog (or Dawg) as the case may be.
I'm curious why you removed my comment on the discussion page. Dawgknot 20:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I see you have been doing it also but keep an eye out for User:67.177.59.114 He is the one adding all of the DOD links to every military page so he can slip in the two links for the infantry web forums that do not belong anywhere except for the infantry page. Thanks fot the help-- Looper5920 10:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW I never knew you created all those Marine Air pages....good job! Swatjester 15:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Just a heads up, User:Get-back-world-respect is rounding up the lynch mob on the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article.
DTC 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't really care. My only problem was with the anon. I take a little offense to the idea however, GBWR, that I exclusively write the article. My presence on this page is here for two issues: I edited the "results" tab, and I stayed here to help combat the anon IP's vandalism. Swatjester 02:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I should mention that my chief interest in the article now is not the content, but rather sub-article linking everything to reduce size. Pookster is all for that, hence my past support for him. Swatjester 10:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Which questions am I not answering? Furthermore, not deleting others comments on their talk pages is considered good wikiquette. It may actually be policy, I'm not clear on that though. The IP's vandalism is well established by multiple users other than myself his RfC page. Let me find the link. Swatjester 02:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Rfc link [17]. To wit:
"1. Can this user be treated as a vandal? Robert McClenon 19:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
2. In agreement and concur with editor McClenon that the user should be treated as a vandal. Gwyllgi 15:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)"
Also the users amazing 17RR violation is documented with diffs there. Is that good enough? Swatjester 03:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me be very clear GetBackWorld Respect....if you post misrepresenting information about me on multiple users talk spaces, then delete my protest about it on your talk page, then delete my protest to your deletions, and finally delete my warning templates on your talk page, I WILL submit your name on the vandalism list. This is what we call "bad faith", and you're exemplifying it right now. By deleting my comments, you are misrepresenting me, and any comments about me, out of context. This is bad faith, and is against wikipedia policy. User talk pages do not belong to the owner. Only user pages do. As for the pookster accusations, I must have missed that. And as for myself, you specifically mentioned me in your comments as "Dominating" the article, which is patently untrue. Your retaliatory stance is not contributing to anything but further problems. Swatjester 03:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm copying this to your talk. Swatjester 03:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Your talk page is not yours. I notice you ironically deleted my post citing no less than 6 wikipedia policies and guidelines supporting my point. I warned you what's up. Deleting user talk warnings is vandalism as per policy, and I've cited you as such. This is my last edit for the night, carry on as you will. I'll return tomorrow evening. Swatjester 03:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Finlay is the only one. Nlu told me to post it there.
Swatjester
00:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Whatever. I've got more important things to worry about than your coverups, and I'm getting ready to archive this page.
Swatjester
02:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
My appologies. I do know 3RR and personally adhere to Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. However, if I exceeded 3RR I belief it was justified under WP:RPA policy especially given the nature of the personal attacks that I was removing. I really need some assistance in handling this better if it comes up again. ArbCom will probably be assigning mentors to the various editors on this page (soon I hope). I'd really appreciate your advice on handling resolving these conflicts better in the future. -- Comaze 10:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the message, and I shall surely try to give my inputs. Firstly, let me read the earlier comments. OK. And, I wish you all the best in your aspiration to become an administrator - as it is said: this is not a big thing. -- Bhadani 15:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I can help mediate the proceedings and provide some second opinion to the dispute(s) at hand. Just drop me a message so I know where/when I'm needed.
Cheers, -- Madchester 15:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't say that I've gotten seriously into the issue you mentioned, but from the little I've read it's an issue being edited by seriously contentious people. As such, feelings are most likely very high-strung. In that case, there's gonna be all sorts of mud-flinging against everybody, including non-partisan outsiders. When that happens, it's more constructive to "take the crap" - so to speak, and not let yourself get seriously upset. Threatening people by saying "If both sides choose to continue to personally attack me [...] I'm warning you right now, I'll take every action available to me" will not really bring the issue anywhere.
As for the article-issue itself, I would try to tread very softly, and try to gently imply to NLP propents that they have to accept that certain people claim that NLP is pseudoscience, and to NLP detractors that they can't "taint" NLP by language usage, every claim has to be sourced - if someone says it's a cult, quote them, and don't use weasel words, etc.
But as I said, I haven't gotten seriously into the issue... — Gabbe 16:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
TBH, I was more interested in getting the parties to debate the issue with each other than your advice in the 2nd paragraph, but on second look it looks like good advice. Thanks. I haven't gotten int the issue either, cause I don't really know anything about NLP, I've just edited typos in the article. Swatjester 17:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for contributing in the NLP page. However I would like to urge you to tread carefully. I had very bad experience with that page. I don't think the issue there is about whether NLP is pseudoscience or not. I think there are people exhibiting troll like attention seeking behaviour. So it is there intention to insult people to get them into edit wars and online flamming. I would urge you not to acknowledge or respond to any posting that deviates from the Wikiepedia guidelines. Unfortunately, current mediation is not working as there isn't any signs of consistent proactive mediation from Wikipedia admin. So, don't expect arcoms to take any action. It will be a waste of your time trying to argue with them. But feel free to delete all insulting postings from the talk page.-- Dejakitty 17:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well you are right. But if you leave all the insults on the talk page, then the entire page will act as an gigantic flamme bait. Ideally, this should be done by the admin mediator consistently based on wikipedia guidelines. I don't think we need a lot of mediators. We just need one good mediator to take on a leadership role who is proactive tough and firm and is prepared to do the following:
If we can find an admin who is prepare to do this, I am sure the problem will go away in no time. Let me know if you find one. -- Dejakitty 17:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Those who flame on the talk page continuously will be warned, and if they don't stop, the proper process goes on them.
1) agreed.
2) No. That won't help the dispute, only incite tensions between those who don't like the frozen version.
3) You can already do that on your own.
4) Violation of wikipedia policy.
5) As a mediator, I won't get involved in the editing.
6) Yes. Working on it.
7) When appropriate.
I've got admins here to watch it. But one doesn't have to be an admin to be a mediator. Swatjester 18:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I have asked admin to watch the page in the past but he/she ended up having an edit war with one of the editors and gave up the page soon afterwards. In theory anyone can engage in mediation, but I wouldn't advise you not to do so at this stage. Any attempt in mediation will very likely turn into troll food. That guy on the NLP page is very skillful at pushing boundaries and manipulate mediators and admins. -- Dejakitty 18:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well thus far Bhagdani, Gabbe, Madchester, and KillerChihuahua are watching the page. While I don't know the first 3 well, KillerChihuahua has explicitly stated that he will not engage in the article nor does he have any interest too. If nobody tries to mediate, nobody will succeed. If I fail, so what. It's the internet. I'll go out tonight, have a beer, and go to sleep without caring about it. Swatjester 18:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to let VoiceofAll know that you have requested further admin backup as a matter of courteousy. He is an admin semi-involved in the NLP page, though he is not very active at the moment. If admins are too reluctant to deal with the situation, then I don't think there is anything we can do about it, apart from just be grateful that these are iternet trolls, not real-life terrorist. -- Dejakitty 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Sup SJ. I was in 124th originally, before I went over to LRS. Did you know 1sgt Marks? He came over a year or so after me, is our 1sgt now. Also, I went to SOA for about a few weeks. Leppy 20:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
1sg marks? nope. I'm in 3rd bat up in tallahassee. I've been under 1sg Nunn, 1sg simmons, and currently 1sg crisler in my time. Swatjester 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Leppy hmm....any relation to the Rachel Lepara, or Christina Smith? Swatjester 20:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
least you tried. :) Oddly enough, since the Danes are the ones getting the bad press because of that cartoon nonsense ::insert eye roll here::, when I saw 'hammertime', instead of good ol' M.C. himself, I went off on some mental heathen tangents and came up with some utterly hilarious pictures in my head (think þórr and Mjollnir). Anyway, just thought I would let you know that at least *one* of us reading the page found your effort to be a very pleasant diversion from the babbling and howling. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I replied on my talk page. KillerChihuahua ?!? 12:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Swatjester. I apologize for the delay in my response. I'll be happy to take a look in on your mediation attempt, but I doubt that I'll be bale to assist all that much (my academic life has become very demanding over the past year or so). Good luck with your work: my understanding is that neuro-linguistic programming has a bit of a history of disagreements. – Clockwork Soul 19:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I really shouldn't edit when I don't know what I am talking about. Broken Segue
Hey I don't know either, I was just making an educated guess based on grammar principles. Swatjester 15:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)