![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Garry Owen to you on your RFA. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 09:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Swat - I value your opinion and would like you to comment on this question if you have a moment: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Wikinews_Interviews_as_Reliable_Sources --David Shankbone 21:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to the candidate questions. That relieves a lot of my worries. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you assist on something? You did a great job on mediating a dispute on the Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them page. Over on National Legal Center for the Public Interest, an organization that no longer exists, that it was funded by corporate sector for corporate interests (primarily). This really isn't a particularly controversial statement, and I have three sources. A user who likes to shadows my edits has taken issue with this. He feels it is a criticism and that including this New York Times story is a WP:WEIGHT issue. We've gotten to the point where we are both arguing the same thing over and over, and we could use a third opinion about it. My point to ATren is that if he would like to see the article cover more topics, that he should expand it; instead, he wants to contract it by removing the cited source. Could you weigh in with your opinion? --David Shankbone 23:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards -- Herby talk thyme 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not list articles for CFD with the sole rationale of "we have recently deleted other articles like this." See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please add at least a valid reason for deletion to your nominations. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You don't agree with the redirect? How come? The new list is a composite of the two older ones. Miremare 21:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm delighted to have been given the mop, at your suggestion, and I'm already having fun using it. I'll be sure to ask you if I need any further guidance - let me know if you see anything I'm doing wrong, or could do better, or might like to try. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 08:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You there? Could you fly past IRC if you are - I need to talk to you about this mediation thing. Cheers, Daniel 00:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I got into a beef with an editor on the List of massacres page and somehow it has bled over into your ArbCom nomination. Never my intention and I apologize that you are in anyway involved in this. Yut.-- Looper5920 ( talk) 04:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You are right with your message, and I wanted to thank you for the matter-of-fact, open way you brought it up. (I wrote a bit more about that on my talk page.) — Sebastian 04:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAWNGAME. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GRBerry ( talk) 04:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you're a bit behind the curve in your responses to me, you might want to review the order of who said what, because the text you were responding to was superceded by later posts in both cases. ++ Lar: t/ c 07:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 18:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I must say you are demonstrating poor judgment, by your continuing to comment. The situation would have been diffused, if you would cease your commenting. Yet, you continue. Whatever your intention, to give helpful advice or otherwise, your continued comments appear to be an attempt to provoke the user. Jeeny has asked you several times to refrain from further comment, so why can't you just respect that? - Rjd0060 ( talk) 06:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
cattle is usually not considered cavalry, but their tactical role in Africa was the same as cavalry so it is legit to mention this somehow. Wandalstouring ( talk) 09:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You have modified the Lakewood yeshiva article based on a legal decision. These allegation is unjustified and is ones personal agenda, as the official Lakewood township site has information that has been deleted from the above article. This is an attempt by someone in charge at Lakewood Yeshiva to remove things they don't like but are in fact not harmful in any way. Please explain why and on what basis they were removed. -- Shmaltz ( talk) 17:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I cannot go into any further detail without divulging the information regarded in the ticket. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:CBLANK which states: From time to time, a discussion about an article will have a majority of its content that, in the judgment of the community may potentially cause harm to some person or to some organization. This harm can range from invasion of privacy, libel or emotional distress. Due consideration should be given if the person or organization in question requests such blanking. In order to avoid having such text in the most recent version and thus be indexed by search engines, the debate will be blanked out of courtesy. For AfDs, the entire debate can be replaced with the afd-privacy template; the actual content remains accessible via the edit history. In more serious cases, the entire history of the page may be deleted. Courtesy blanking, history blanking or oversighting should be rare, and should be performed after due consideration is given to fairness issues.
just think cucumbers Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 19:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If you look at User talk:Jeeny#Continuing our discussion, you'll see she has agreed to follow all guidelines relating to civility and AGF. She seems to have calmed down, and is willing to work with me to resolve conflicts before they escalate. I've posted this to FT2, too. Jeffpw ( talk) 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
SWATjester, can you unprotect my user page? Nevermind, I see why she felt it may need protection. But, I'd like to edit my userpage. Thanks. - Oh no, it's Jeeny (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll have the pictures ready for Wikipedia by tomorrow. Senators Juan E. Hernandez Mayoral and Jorge I. Suarez Caceres were there among a lot of other people representing the three political parties. They also want me to go to PR this coming May to give a speech (with expenses paid). Man, it was a real surprise. I went by myself and didn't take my family because I thought that I was only going to meet McClintock and that's all. Tony the Marine ( talk) 06:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.
My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Please stop removing the FA2 link in Firearms (computer game). The project is mentioned several times in the article and therefor should be mentioned in the external links section. Furthermore, I request you help me with rewriting the "Controversy" part, as it is not written from a neutral point of view. LSky ( talk) 11:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
FA2 is NOT an unrelated project. You know this as well as I do. Please stop removing information from this article. Furthermore, the request of helping to rewrite the controversy part stands. LSky ( talk) 13:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
In one of your responses to candidate questions, you wrote this about me: "Everyking's desysopping, I believe, was more a result of the fact that he intended to publically post information that was deemed to be sensitive and private (and had been removed), rather than the place that he would have posted it. (I'm going from memory here, but I recall that he did not actually get around to posting the material)." This is false and harmful to my reputation, and I would like you to rewrite or remove it. To say that I "intended" to post the material (when I merely suggested the possibility and then declined to act on it) and that "did not actually get around to posting the material", as if I would have if I had more time, is a damaging misrepresentation of events. You are of course free to think whatever you like about my desysopping, although if you are basing your belief on such a serious misunderstanding of the situation, I would hope you'd reconsider your view. Everyking ( talk) 05:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a legitimate sock of Miranda. Check the logs. I (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would be much of a surprise for you to know that as it stands now, I would likely oppose your nomination for arbcom.
Though likely not for the reason(s) you may think, It's not because you claimed a nomination of mine was "not valid", nor for your "vote" to overturn. It's because in those instances, it was almost like pulling teeth to get you to convey the "why". You never did clarify your "point" at the UCFD discussion (though you did somewhat on your talk page), and your comments at the DRV seemed (at least) "stressed". And in all, you came across (perhaps unintentionally) "short", overbearing, and closed to discussion. (A sense of: "I'm right, you're wrong, now go away and leave me alone...")
And for me, being able to denote and convey "the why" is vital to a member of ArbCom. Else how is one to understand how another discerns, how another is expressing themselves, and how that is being interpreted. In my opinion, it is imperative that this is a skill/talent/developed ability of a cantidate.
That said, as I look over the things you're involved in, and the responsibilities you've carried, perhaps I've been too hasty to ascribe you to not having attined such a developed ability. (This could be just due to this set of localised incidents, after all, and not represent the who of who you actually are.)
I would like to hope that I'm an open-minded individual, and perhaps I've missed something. So similar to what you're doing on your "portfolio" on the template, I'd ask you to do something for me:
Would you provide several links here showing where you feel that you were at your best at discussion. For example (but not limited to) Where you openly offered to help, and the "how" of implementing that help. Where you positively joined a discussion to help as a "fellow Wikipedian", and strong consensus came of it. It doesn't have to be an XfD discussion, we have a myriad number of discussions throughout wikipedia.
If you choose to, thank you in advance. If not, I would understand that as well. - jc37 08:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This article has been restored after its deletion was contested. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Stifle ( talk) 11:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The
November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot
02:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Swatjester - You made a curious comment on your ArbCom vote. I expected that many users would regard my lack of logged-in editing as a negative (to be honest, I have no expectation of being elected, chiefly for this reason). However your comment "seems out of touch with today's Wikipedia" completely caught me by surprise. If you have the time I'd be grateful if you could explain how you came to that opinion. Cheers Manning 04:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah - that was more to do with using IRC :) I haven't used IRC in over six years and couldn't remember the conventions, and was also clueless on Wikipedia IRC customs. I am also fairly ignorant as to the inner technicalities of MediaWiki (which is unlikely to change) and my problem was to do with userids and historical data. It even took Tim Starling a while to figure it all out, so I didn't feel too dumb in the end. But thanks for your reply - appreciated. Cheers Manning 05:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't follow the case but I think he is upset by all this stuff and particularly by the endless disputes around the Arab-Israeli conflict related articles...
Don't worry for that and have a nice day ;-)
Ceedjee
11:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Your userpage is possibly the greatest thing I've ever seen in my life. what's the chance you'd give me permission to steal it and format it for myself, considering I am a HUGE addict to a social networking site the page bears a striking resemblence in my imagination to? ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 12:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I read the incident recently featured on Slashdot, and I just wanted to thank you for your continual questioning. Reading through the entire page, it seemed like you were the constant voice of skepticism when there was a lot of shady support for a shady incident. So thanks.-- - Bob 09:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone tried to delete your BallenIsles article. I have adjusted it slightly and hope it may be saved. Season's greetings. 76.108.172.100 ( talk) 23:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It's an interesting situation. I'd like to publicly show that I support the candidate, but that I also oppose the candidate. I don't actually feel neutral. Now, I understand that my method is unusual - and I can see the sense in an indentation. But I don't quite get the thinking behind a total reversion which has the effect of hiding my views totally. I'll remove my "votes" myself if you can point me to a guideline which says that is the way my action should be treated. I'd be interested in opening a discussion on this with the community is there isn't a current guideline to get some consensus. Regards SilkTork * SilkyTalk 08:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed an exchange at The Tranhumanist's RfA, and rather than jump in there (more than enough comments there already), I thought I'd raise it here. I agree with what CBD said here. For a case similar to that described in Q10, see this warning and advice I posted. I suspect some people would have just slapped an indefinite block on, but I think my edit summary demonstrates why I didn't. In this case, it is not vandalism-only, as there was a genuine edit. In the Q10 case it is difficult to label an account with one edit outside of an attempt to write an article as vandalism-only. Would you agree? Are you saying that the hypothetical account in Q10 in that RFA is a vandalism-only account? Carcharoth ( talk) 12:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
"Upon deleting a totally non notable garage band's attempt at getting an entry into Wikipedia, (the entry consisting entirely of the idea that they'll be big in 2008, and a link to their Myspace "official site"), the article creator decides your user page would look better off it it just said "The Transhumanist is a gay fucker". These are the editors only contributions. Block or no block? Why? Pedro : Chat 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)"
Yes. After the deletion, the account's only contribution is a vandalism to your page. Hence, it's a vandalism only account. We don't need to be coddling trolls like this: anyone who thinks that the proper response when your page is vandalized is "XXXX is a gay fucker" needs to be blocked. We should not be tolerating that sort of behavior in the slightest. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 14:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you see how what you are suggesting go against what is said there? The phrase "main or only use" in that quote was neveer intended to apply to accounts with only 4 or 5 edits. As the Transhumanist said, it is persistent misbehaviour that should lead to an indefinite block, not a single incident. The first step should always be to see what attempts have been made to communicate. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behaviour conflicts with our policies and guidelines. A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable. Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity, and accounts whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sock-puppetry, obvious vandalism, personal attack, and so on) may not require further warning."
Hang on. Sorry. I think I'm confusing this discussion with some others I'm having elsewhere. I've suddenly started mentioning indefinite blocks, but I've realised you haven't said how long you would block for in a case like this. If you wouldn't block indefinitely, my apologies. If you would, then carry right on with the discussion. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there.
Hope you're well and the elections aren't stressing you out too much. Just as a voter, they're exhausting - I take my vote extremely seriously and really check out the candidates before slapping my name on.
Hope you don't mind if I stop by and mention that you've puzzled me. I thought Q10 was a pretty odd RfA question because IMHO there actually is no real right or wrong answer (well, within reason). There are admins who would block such an account on sight and I wouldn't view that as an abuse of the tools. Other admins would take AGF to the extreme and warn.* Frankly, I'd rather have new admins erring on the side of leniency with the block button; I don't think TT's answer was truly awful. At worst, it was perhaps a little naive, but then everyone's inexperienced with the tools before they, erm, get the tools. :-)
Finally, it looks like TT's 3rd RfA is going down the pan, like the previous ones. I think it's a shame. The guy sometimes argues things incorrectly (hey, we all do that) but is man enough to admit when he's wrong. I think his manner has got up the noses of people in the past which has gone against him. Having been here for a while, I think this is a common problem for Gnomey admin candidates.
In my book, you're fair-minded and I respect you as a Wikipedian. I have this opinion because I've delved into your edit history and I like what I see... and I'm off in a mo to act on what I've seen. I'm sure (no sarcasm here, just sincerity) that similarly you did look at TT's edit history before signing at RfA, but I'd like to invite you to take a few moments and have another review of his recent edit history (say, some period between the last RfA and when I invited him to start thinking about adminship again). Please drop me a line at my talk page to let me know if you think he is or isn't trustworthy. I say my talk page, because after 2.5 not-so-pleasant RfAs, I think TT's had enough stick without me inviting more (in the eventuality you hold by your current opinion that he can't be trusted with the tools.
Hope you don't mind this request and I certainly hope you don't feel offended. I make no assumption you'll change your mind, but I want to know where my error of judgement is - that I could twice trust someone to the extent that I'd nominate them... yet the community deems untrustworthy.
Cheers -- Dweller ( talk) 16:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
*for what it's worth, personally, I'd have blocked. But I'm relatively new to the mop and a few months back... I'd have warned.
Thanks for the thorough and considered response. Just to clarify, if his record and RfA was otherwise entirely spotless, would that answer to Q10 prompt you to oppose? -- Dweller ( talk) 20:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I wasn't sure you'd time with law school and all, but your new (adapted) user page has convinced me that you'll have time. Incidentally, where are you getting the updated vote tallies, or is it your own script? Cool Hand Luke 06:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
"I'm very glad you posted the email, it was the right thing. Unfortunately, that would be unacceptable for an arbitrator."
Are you saying that doing the right thing is unacceptable? Or that you don't trust his judgement on what is the right thing, even though he got it right this time? — Random832 14:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Swat, I think the reason that KC is a party to the Request for ArbCom is because Moulton himself believes that KC is some sort of a leader in the great cabal over at the Wiki-Intelligent Design project. It was this cabal that apparently is responsible for him being banned. Just a quick FYI. Cheers!!! Baegis ( talk) 14:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That's the story with User:Jeeny? I stumbled across the fact that User:Jeffpw is her (new as of a week ago) mentor when he advocated for her in a somewhat odd way. She seems to express herself in very emotional and black&white moralistic terms. -- Pleasantville ( talk) 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
It seems impossible you have never been awarded a barnstar. Someone who gives. A lot. David Shankbone 07:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC) |
I asked Gurch, but he said it was your layout and therefore to ask you, so here I am. I am currently using the same layout as you, with some additions and removals I have made. I am quite happy to give full credit if you tell me where - my question is if you would please allow me to use it? Thanks. ☺ Ase nine (talk) (contribs) 13:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I see your name frequently while editing, so I thought of dropping by and saying hi. That is, if you remember who I am. :P Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share? 19:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
'tis the season of giving, after all... keep up all the good work! Master of Puppets Care to share? 16:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks a lot for the bright shiny thing that showed up on my talk page! It was really kind, very unexpected, and means a lot to me coming from you. I'm glad we have been able to work through past conflicts and work together harmoniously on a project that obviously means a lot to both of us. Jeffpw ( talk) 21:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Just seeking clarification on "begs the question" - i.e. which question is being begged. (Note I also queried a vote that agreed with mine on a different question which was also unclear, so this is in no way a challenge) Orderinchaos 06:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Whoa- does that happen automatically? Have to test. Tvoz | talk 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Swatjester, a while back I worked with you with an alternate account of mine (Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend?) on the Parma, Ohio article. Anyway, I recently saw on national news channels coverage of an incident in Parma pertaining to some kind of unidentified object. I first noticed it on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, but I did some searches online and it appears to have received fairly widespread attention. Anyway, I added a small section to the article at [2] and thought it be worth seeing if you had any ideas on if additional sources are needed or if the section should be expanded. All the best! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Controversy still rages about your Ballen Isles article. Do you have any comments? 76.108.172.100 ( talk) 00:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, Avilla came to the rescue. Is Avilla a mate of yours? 76.108.172.100 ( talk) 16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Why halo thar. :o -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 03:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
In most cases, sure. Any serious candidate should get one. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 13:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, cocks. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 00:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Swatjester, I see that you have reverted not only my reverted edit of the Maher Arar article, but the justification for that reversion on the talk page.
It is difficult for me to understand both changes. I will confine this particular discussion to the reversion of what i wrote on the discussion page for the article:
According to the talk page guidelines, a discussion page is a place "for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." Under the central points provision, the guidelines state that a discussion page is a place to, among other things,
What I wrote on the discussion page,
It seems quite clear, based on the evidence, that Mr. Arar's unfortunate experience is best understand not as a rendition (after all, there are countless renditions), but as an extraordinary rendition. This is what I am trying to communicate and I am concerned that your reversion is made in bad faith. If you would like to carry on this discussion, you are of course invited to write comments on my talk page.
Thank you for your consideration. I think, though, that in the interests of discussion, that I will revert your reversions until it becomes clear that they are not thinly veiled attempts to censure a point of view. Perhaps you would care to consult the appropriate wikipedia guidelines on that subject: What Wikipedia is not Ben ( talk) 06:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I have reviewed what Wikipedia is not page. I cannot find a single policy that substantiates this alleged rule that wikipedia "is NOT a place to discuss conspiracy theories, and wikipedia talk pages are NOT forums for idle chat about a subject."
I have several questions that I would also appreciate some clarification on as well
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Garry Owen to you on your RFA. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 09:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey Swat - I value your opinion and would like you to comment on this question if you have a moment: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Wikinews_Interviews_as_Reliable_Sources --David Shankbone 21:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding to the candidate questions. That relieves a lot of my worries. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you assist on something? You did a great job on mediating a dispute on the Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them page. Over on National Legal Center for the Public Interest, an organization that no longer exists, that it was funded by corporate sector for corporate interests (primarily). This really isn't a particularly controversial statement, and I have three sources. A user who likes to shadows my edits has taken issue with this. He feels it is a criticism and that including this New York Times story is a WP:WEIGHT issue. We've gotten to the point where we are both arguing the same thing over and over, and we could use a third opinion about it. My point to ATren is that if he would like to see the article cover more topics, that he should expand it; instead, he wants to contract it by removing the cited source. Could you weigh in with your opinion? --David Shankbone 23:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards -- Herby talk thyme 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not list articles for CFD with the sole rationale of "we have recently deleted other articles like this." See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Please add at least a valid reason for deletion to your nominations. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You don't agree with the redirect? How come? The new list is a composite of the two older ones. Miremare 21:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm delighted to have been given the mop, at your suggestion, and I'm already having fun using it. I'll be sure to ask you if I need any further guidance - let me know if you see anything I'm doing wrong, or could do better, or might like to try. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 08:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
You there? Could you fly past IRC if you are - I need to talk to you about this mediation thing. Cheers, Daniel 00:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I got into a beef with an editor on the List of massacres page and somehow it has bled over into your ArbCom nomination. Never my intention and I apologize that you are in anyway involved in this. Yut.-- Looper5920 ( talk) 04:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You are right with your message, and I wanted to thank you for the matter-of-fact, open way you brought it up. (I wrote a bit more about that on my talk page.) — Sebastian 04:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of PAWNGAME. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GRBerry ( talk) 04:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you're a bit behind the curve in your responses to me, you might want to review the order of who said what, because the text you were responding to was superceded by later posts in both cases. ++ Lar: t/ c 07:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 18:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I must say you are demonstrating poor judgment, by your continuing to comment. The situation would have been diffused, if you would cease your commenting. Yet, you continue. Whatever your intention, to give helpful advice or otherwise, your continued comments appear to be an attempt to provoke the user. Jeeny has asked you several times to refrain from further comment, so why can't you just respect that? - Rjd0060 ( talk) 06:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
cattle is usually not considered cavalry, but their tactical role in Africa was the same as cavalry so it is legit to mention this somehow. Wandalstouring ( talk) 09:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You have modified the Lakewood yeshiva article based on a legal decision. These allegation is unjustified and is ones personal agenda, as the official Lakewood township site has information that has been deleted from the above article. This is an attempt by someone in charge at Lakewood Yeshiva to remove things they don't like but are in fact not harmful in any way. Please explain why and on what basis they were removed. -- Shmaltz ( talk) 17:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I cannot go into any further detail without divulging the information regarded in the ticket. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:CBLANK which states: From time to time, a discussion about an article will have a majority of its content that, in the judgment of the community may potentially cause harm to some person or to some organization. This harm can range from invasion of privacy, libel or emotional distress. Due consideration should be given if the person or organization in question requests such blanking. In order to avoid having such text in the most recent version and thus be indexed by search engines, the debate will be blanked out of courtesy. For AfDs, the entire debate can be replaced with the afd-privacy template; the actual content remains accessible via the edit history. In more serious cases, the entire history of the page may be deleted. Courtesy blanking, history blanking or oversighting should be rare, and should be performed after due consideration is given to fairness issues.
just think cucumbers Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 19:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If you look at User talk:Jeeny#Continuing our discussion, you'll see she has agreed to follow all guidelines relating to civility and AGF. She seems to have calmed down, and is willing to work with me to resolve conflicts before they escalate. I've posted this to FT2, too. Jeffpw ( talk) 21:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
SWATjester, can you unprotect my user page? Nevermind, I see why she felt it may need protection. But, I'd like to edit my userpage. Thanks. - Oh no, it's Jeeny (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll have the pictures ready for Wikipedia by tomorrow. Senators Juan E. Hernandez Mayoral and Jorge I. Suarez Caceres were there among a lot of other people representing the three political parties. They also want me to go to PR this coming May to give a speech (with expenses paid). Man, it was a real surprise. I went by myself and didn't take my family because I thought that I was only going to meet McClintock and that's all. Tony the Marine ( talk) 06:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.
My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Please stop removing the FA2 link in Firearms (computer game). The project is mentioned several times in the article and therefor should be mentioned in the external links section. Furthermore, I request you help me with rewriting the "Controversy" part, as it is not written from a neutral point of view. LSky ( talk) 11:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
FA2 is NOT an unrelated project. You know this as well as I do. Please stop removing information from this article. Furthermore, the request of helping to rewrite the controversy part stands. LSky ( talk) 13:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
In one of your responses to candidate questions, you wrote this about me: "Everyking's desysopping, I believe, was more a result of the fact that he intended to publically post information that was deemed to be sensitive and private (and had been removed), rather than the place that he would have posted it. (I'm going from memory here, but I recall that he did not actually get around to posting the material)." This is false and harmful to my reputation, and I would like you to rewrite or remove it. To say that I "intended" to post the material (when I merely suggested the possibility and then declined to act on it) and that "did not actually get around to posting the material", as if I would have if I had more time, is a damaging misrepresentation of events. You are of course free to think whatever you like about my desysopping, although if you are basing your belief on such a serious misunderstanding of the situation, I would hope you'd reconsider your view. Everyking ( talk) 05:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a legitimate sock of Miranda. Check the logs. I (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would be much of a surprise for you to know that as it stands now, I would likely oppose your nomination for arbcom.
Though likely not for the reason(s) you may think, It's not because you claimed a nomination of mine was "not valid", nor for your "vote" to overturn. It's because in those instances, it was almost like pulling teeth to get you to convey the "why". You never did clarify your "point" at the UCFD discussion (though you did somewhat on your talk page), and your comments at the DRV seemed (at least) "stressed". And in all, you came across (perhaps unintentionally) "short", overbearing, and closed to discussion. (A sense of: "I'm right, you're wrong, now go away and leave me alone...")
And for me, being able to denote and convey "the why" is vital to a member of ArbCom. Else how is one to understand how another discerns, how another is expressing themselves, and how that is being interpreted. In my opinion, it is imperative that this is a skill/talent/developed ability of a cantidate.
That said, as I look over the things you're involved in, and the responsibilities you've carried, perhaps I've been too hasty to ascribe you to not having attined such a developed ability. (This could be just due to this set of localised incidents, after all, and not represent the who of who you actually are.)
I would like to hope that I'm an open-minded individual, and perhaps I've missed something. So similar to what you're doing on your "portfolio" on the template, I'd ask you to do something for me:
Would you provide several links here showing where you feel that you were at your best at discussion. For example (but not limited to) Where you openly offered to help, and the "how" of implementing that help. Where you positively joined a discussion to help as a "fellow Wikipedian", and strong consensus came of it. It doesn't have to be an XfD discussion, we have a myriad number of discussions throughout wikipedia.
If you choose to, thank you in advance. If not, I would understand that as well. - jc37 08:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
This article has been restored after its deletion was contested. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Stifle ( talk) 11:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The
November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot
02:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Swatjester - You made a curious comment on your ArbCom vote. I expected that many users would regard my lack of logged-in editing as a negative (to be honest, I have no expectation of being elected, chiefly for this reason). However your comment "seems out of touch with today's Wikipedia" completely caught me by surprise. If you have the time I'd be grateful if you could explain how you came to that opinion. Cheers Manning 04:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah - that was more to do with using IRC :) I haven't used IRC in over six years and couldn't remember the conventions, and was also clueless on Wikipedia IRC customs. I am also fairly ignorant as to the inner technicalities of MediaWiki (which is unlikely to change) and my problem was to do with userids and historical data. It even took Tim Starling a while to figure it all out, so I didn't feel too dumb in the end. But thanks for your reply - appreciated. Cheers Manning 05:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't follow the case but I think he is upset by all this stuff and particularly by the endless disputes around the Arab-Israeli conflict related articles...
Don't worry for that and have a nice day ;-)
Ceedjee
11:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Your userpage is possibly the greatest thing I've ever seen in my life. what's the chance you'd give me permission to steal it and format it for myself, considering I am a HUGE addict to a social networking site the page bears a striking resemblence in my imagination to? ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 12:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I read the incident recently featured on Slashdot, and I just wanted to thank you for your continual questioning. Reading through the entire page, it seemed like you were the constant voice of skepticism when there was a lot of shady support for a shady incident. So thanks.-- - Bob 09:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone tried to delete your BallenIsles article. I have adjusted it slightly and hope it may be saved. Season's greetings. 76.108.172.100 ( talk) 23:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It's an interesting situation. I'd like to publicly show that I support the candidate, but that I also oppose the candidate. I don't actually feel neutral. Now, I understand that my method is unusual - and I can see the sense in an indentation. But I don't quite get the thinking behind a total reversion which has the effect of hiding my views totally. I'll remove my "votes" myself if you can point me to a guideline which says that is the way my action should be treated. I'd be interested in opening a discussion on this with the community is there isn't a current guideline to get some consensus. Regards SilkTork * SilkyTalk 08:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed an exchange at The Tranhumanist's RfA, and rather than jump in there (more than enough comments there already), I thought I'd raise it here. I agree with what CBD said here. For a case similar to that described in Q10, see this warning and advice I posted. I suspect some people would have just slapped an indefinite block on, but I think my edit summary demonstrates why I didn't. In this case, it is not vandalism-only, as there was a genuine edit. In the Q10 case it is difficult to label an account with one edit outside of an attempt to write an article as vandalism-only. Would you agree? Are you saying that the hypothetical account in Q10 in that RFA is a vandalism-only account? Carcharoth ( talk) 12:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
"Upon deleting a totally non notable garage band's attempt at getting an entry into Wikipedia, (the entry consisting entirely of the idea that they'll be big in 2008, and a link to their Myspace "official site"), the article creator decides your user page would look better off it it just said "The Transhumanist is a gay fucker". These are the editors only contributions. Block or no block? Why? Pedro : Chat 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)"
Yes. After the deletion, the account's only contribution is a vandalism to your page. Hence, it's a vandalism only account. We don't need to be coddling trolls like this: anyone who thinks that the proper response when your page is vandalized is "XXXX is a gay fucker" needs to be blocked. We should not be tolerating that sort of behavior in the slightest. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 14:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you see how what you are suggesting go against what is said there? The phrase "main or only use" in that quote was neveer intended to apply to accounts with only 4 or 5 edits. As the Transhumanist said, it is persistent misbehaviour that should lead to an indefinite block, not a single incident. The first step should always be to see what attempts have been made to communicate. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate the user about our policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behaviour conflicts with our policies and guidelines. A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable. Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity, and accounts whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sock-puppetry, obvious vandalism, personal attack, and so on) may not require further warning."
Hang on. Sorry. I think I'm confusing this discussion with some others I'm having elsewhere. I've suddenly started mentioning indefinite blocks, but I've realised you haven't said how long you would block for in a case like this. If you wouldn't block indefinitely, my apologies. If you would, then carry right on with the discussion. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there.
Hope you're well and the elections aren't stressing you out too much. Just as a voter, they're exhausting - I take my vote extremely seriously and really check out the candidates before slapping my name on.
Hope you don't mind if I stop by and mention that you've puzzled me. I thought Q10 was a pretty odd RfA question because IMHO there actually is no real right or wrong answer (well, within reason). There are admins who would block such an account on sight and I wouldn't view that as an abuse of the tools. Other admins would take AGF to the extreme and warn.* Frankly, I'd rather have new admins erring on the side of leniency with the block button; I don't think TT's answer was truly awful. At worst, it was perhaps a little naive, but then everyone's inexperienced with the tools before they, erm, get the tools. :-)
Finally, it looks like TT's 3rd RfA is going down the pan, like the previous ones. I think it's a shame. The guy sometimes argues things incorrectly (hey, we all do that) but is man enough to admit when he's wrong. I think his manner has got up the noses of people in the past which has gone against him. Having been here for a while, I think this is a common problem for Gnomey admin candidates.
In my book, you're fair-minded and I respect you as a Wikipedian. I have this opinion because I've delved into your edit history and I like what I see... and I'm off in a mo to act on what I've seen. I'm sure (no sarcasm here, just sincerity) that similarly you did look at TT's edit history before signing at RfA, but I'd like to invite you to take a few moments and have another review of his recent edit history (say, some period between the last RfA and when I invited him to start thinking about adminship again). Please drop me a line at my talk page to let me know if you think he is or isn't trustworthy. I say my talk page, because after 2.5 not-so-pleasant RfAs, I think TT's had enough stick without me inviting more (in the eventuality you hold by your current opinion that he can't be trusted with the tools.
Hope you don't mind this request and I certainly hope you don't feel offended. I make no assumption you'll change your mind, but I want to know where my error of judgement is - that I could twice trust someone to the extent that I'd nominate them... yet the community deems untrustworthy.
Cheers -- Dweller ( talk) 16:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
*for what it's worth, personally, I'd have blocked. But I'm relatively new to the mop and a few months back... I'd have warned.
Thanks for the thorough and considered response. Just to clarify, if his record and RfA was otherwise entirely spotless, would that answer to Q10 prompt you to oppose? -- Dweller ( talk) 20:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I wasn't sure you'd time with law school and all, but your new (adapted) user page has convinced me that you'll have time. Incidentally, where are you getting the updated vote tallies, or is it your own script? Cool Hand Luke 06:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
"I'm very glad you posted the email, it was the right thing. Unfortunately, that would be unacceptable for an arbitrator."
Are you saying that doing the right thing is unacceptable? Or that you don't trust his judgement on what is the right thing, even though he got it right this time? — Random832 14:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Swat, I think the reason that KC is a party to the Request for ArbCom is because Moulton himself believes that KC is some sort of a leader in the great cabal over at the Wiki-Intelligent Design project. It was this cabal that apparently is responsible for him being banned. Just a quick FYI. Cheers!!! Baegis ( talk) 14:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That's the story with User:Jeeny? I stumbled across the fact that User:Jeffpw is her (new as of a week ago) mentor when he advocated for her in a somewhat odd way. She seems to express herself in very emotional and black&white moralistic terms. -- Pleasantville ( talk) 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
It seems impossible you have never been awarded a barnstar. Someone who gives. A lot. David Shankbone 07:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC) |
I asked Gurch, but he said it was your layout and therefore to ask you, so here I am. I am currently using the same layout as you, with some additions and removals I have made. I am quite happy to give full credit if you tell me where - my question is if you would please allow me to use it? Thanks. ☺ Ase nine (talk) (contribs) 13:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I see your name frequently while editing, so I thought of dropping by and saying hi. That is, if you remember who I am. :P Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share? 19:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
'tis the season of giving, after all... keep up all the good work! Master of Puppets Care to share? 16:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
Thanks a lot for the bright shiny thing that showed up on my talk page! It was really kind, very unexpected, and means a lot to me coming from you. I'm glad we have been able to work through past conflicts and work together harmoniously on a project that obviously means a lot to both of us. Jeffpw ( talk) 21:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Just seeking clarification on "begs the question" - i.e. which question is being begged. (Note I also queried a vote that agreed with mine on a different question which was also unclear, so this is in no way a challenge) Orderinchaos 06:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Whoa- does that happen automatically? Have to test. Tvoz | talk 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Swatjester, a while back I worked with you with an alternate account of mine (Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend?) on the Parma, Ohio article. Anyway, I recently saw on national news channels coverage of an incident in Parma pertaining to some kind of unidentified object. I first noticed it on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, but I did some searches online and it appears to have received fairly widespread attention. Anyway, I added a small section to the article at [2] and thought it be worth seeing if you had any ideas on if additional sources are needed or if the section should be expanded. All the best! Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Controversy still rages about your Ballen Isles article. Do you have any comments? 76.108.172.100 ( talk) 00:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, Avilla came to the rescue. Is Avilla a mate of yours? 76.108.172.100 ( talk) 16:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Why halo thar. :o -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 03:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
In most cases, sure. Any serious candidate should get one. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 13:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, cocks. -- Avillia (Avillia me!) 00:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Swatjester, I see that you have reverted not only my reverted edit of the Maher Arar article, but the justification for that reversion on the talk page.
It is difficult for me to understand both changes. I will confine this particular discussion to the reversion of what i wrote on the discussion page for the article:
According to the talk page guidelines, a discussion page is a place "for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." Under the central points provision, the guidelines state that a discussion page is a place to, among other things,
What I wrote on the discussion page,
It seems quite clear, based on the evidence, that Mr. Arar's unfortunate experience is best understand not as a rendition (after all, there are countless renditions), but as an extraordinary rendition. This is what I am trying to communicate and I am concerned that your reversion is made in bad faith. If you would like to carry on this discussion, you are of course invited to write comments on my talk page.
Thank you for your consideration. I think, though, that in the interests of discussion, that I will revert your reversions until it becomes clear that they are not thinly veiled attempts to censure a point of view. Perhaps you would care to consult the appropriate wikipedia guidelines on that subject: What Wikipedia is not Ben ( talk) 06:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I have reviewed what Wikipedia is not page. I cannot find a single policy that substantiates this alleged rule that wikipedia "is NOT a place to discuss conspiracy theories, and wikipedia talk pages are NOT forums for idle chat about a subject."
I have several questions that I would also appreciate some clarification on as well