![]() | 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. |
The
March 2008 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 (
talk)
02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me it you who is doing vandalism. I created a page Deck 13 which created popular games. What is the reason for the deletion?. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 04:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/68.39.174.238? There is an IP user who insists on editing the "No" votes of three other users and keeps moving them from "No" to "Neutral". You have reverted him once and I have reverted him twice. I tried to explain to him, both on his talk page and on the talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/68.39.174.238 that editing other people's recorded votes is inappropriate, but he insists on doing it. I am not sure how to proceed next... Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly what have I vandalized? Just about all I've been doing in the past few weeks is expanding infoboxes on TV station articles. New World Man ( talk) 08:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed you undid my large edit on pro-ana a little while ago. Was this because I clobbered something by mistake? — 80.237.187.34 ( talk) 09:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible for the Seven Society, Order of the Crown and Dagger page to be restored? If so, how? I am an alumni member of the group. There were several nonmembers attempting to put false information on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldominion ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
A Google search shows fewer than 2500 hits on this term, nearly 90% of which refer to Ryan's mass commutation of death sentences in Illinois, and are mostly from news accounts. Of the remaining 300 or so, virtually none of which are from legal sources (and show no consistent meaning). Could you provide some citations from legal sources for this rather strange assertion? Minos P. Dautrieve ( talk) 20:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
According to Westlaw:
⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
--Please excuse the shoddy citations, I'm just cut/pasting the cites from westlaw. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that the majority of reference to it is related to Ryan's mass commutations; however that was a major event, and the type of usage in the opinions implies notability to me. If several federal and state courts are willing to use the term, then I don't believe it's a neologism. Especially since the term Blanket as a modifier (meaning all-covering) to clemency (forgiveness) is, by virtue of common sense, a word. Just because it is a newer use, does not mean that it is a neologism, or that it is inappropriate for inclusion. The court cases establish its notability; as does the massive amount of coverage of Mr. Ryan's actions. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I have replied to you on my talk page, to keep discussion in one place. - PetraSchelm ( talk) 21:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Swatjester, I saw you were a bit upset and I just wanted to wish you a nice day, and thank you for your tireless contributions. It's a beautiful day where I am and I'm going to go outside for a bike ride. I don't know what the weather's like in DC, maybe a cup of tea is more appropriate there? :) Jfire ( talk) 21:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It's now "Calm". ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I smell POV-pushing even by administrators. Please check contribution history, the {fact} tab was added on March after someone intentionally removed the citation. I already showed on Talk:Tibet#Grunfield_souce that the source is NPOV, and the remover gave me no reply.
Even if it is really unsourced, wasn't it too early remove the whole content as the {cn} tab was just added few weeks ago? 219.79.252.210 ( talk) 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I have also suggested replacing the said introduction paragraphs by a short one with NPOV wording. See Talk:Tibet#article's_introduction and feel free to discuss. 219.79.252.210 ( talk) 15:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Swatjester, Thank you for the work you've done with maintaining Wikipedia sites as an admin. I've seen recently that you, or some of your fellow editors, have deleted a page regarding the Seven Society, Order of the Crown & Dagger, from the College of William and Mary in Virginia. I'm writing to ask you to please restore the page. As a student at the College, I've received messages from this group since I was a sophomore and I can speak to the groups relevance on campus and the high regard to which students hold it. The group is well known for it's banners supporting campus events and for it's public showing of support for campus leaders. I've been monitoring the site and I've seen some vandalism back and forth lately, no doubt from members of other groups or people not affiliated with the Sevens. Frankly, and with supreme honesty, I can say that this group is the most visible and pertinent of all secret societies on the W&M campus, with members like Earl Gregg Swem (our campus library is named after him) and Walter J. Zable (our football stadium is named after him). I'm writing to ask you to restore the page and put it on a protected status so that others can appreciated the knowledge of the good work this group does. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. I'm aware of the work you've done and thankful for your assistance with this.
-W&M1693 —Preceding unsigned comment added by W&M1693 ( talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You might want to redact that, and mumble a sheepish apology. I'd be interested to know where you picked up the idea, though. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 08:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just saw that you unblocked Mario1987. I am disappointed that you did so without making any preconditions. I will give him vandalism warnings as soon as he creates another inaccurate and incomplete football article without doing any basic research. There was consensus to do this at WP:FOOTY (before he was blocked) because it is disruptive, and and he absolutely failed to respond to any constructive criticism or advice on his talkpage carrying on regardless. Perhaps you didn't see the backlog of poorly referenced, misleading and inaccurate articles he rushed out. Only 20% of them have been fixed/deleted so far. I am also rather surprised that he basically got away with such obvious sockpuppetry. English peasant 08:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
I noticed you removed the Scientology section from the Latham and Walkins page citing an OTRS complaint? I was wondering if I should re-add the section or not, as it appeared to be more-or-less properly cited at its last point of existence. (I've since made some copyedits, but I have not re-added the section at this time.) I'm afraid this is the first time I've heard of OTRS so I'm not sure of the procedures.
PS: Ignore the retired thing on my page for now :P Logical2u ( talk) 20:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi - can you please explain rationale for recent edits to remove CoS references from L&W page?
This has received magazine coverage, is ongoing, and is notable. L&W clients, and those with an interest in L&W are likely to also be interested in the information you removed. No explanation was provided on the Discussion page, just OTRS # 2008040810016483 in your comment, and I understand that OTRS requests are confidential - so that note tells us nothing about why it was removed.
That leaves an assumption of 'because L&W didn't like it' - and I'm sure (hope) there's more to it than that.
More than prepared to consider this in the scope of WP policies, but need the rationale to justify it. For context: http://forums.enturbulation.org/15-breaking-news/anonymous-hate-crimes-packets-distributed-houston-9-april-2008-a-8212/2/
Thanks 219.89.194.217 ( talk) 01:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As I told you I cannot. If you revert it, I will semi-protect the page. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Conradine dynasty is back; I don't know on what basis you judged it as a hoax, and I'm reluctant to do the same myself without more data. Up to you. DS ( talk) 15:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
== Mens Room Radio Program == Why are you changing the article and removing what the cast of the show read on air live, when they said it was accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Machineking1313 ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I just saw you opining on the battlegrounds... way to go! Tvoz | talk 17:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.-- Filll ( talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Terrorism WikiProject April 2008 Newsletter |
![]() |
News
| ||
Archives • Discussion |
Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 05:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
As per your comments on my Talk Page: I will state that while your comments regarding Wikipedia communications may have been intended as a sincere effort to maintain civility, it was nonetheless perceived as a "cut it out or I will personally block you from editing" threat. For my efforts in managing professional and vocational environments, I've always found that it easier to bring about desired results by using diplomatic language and a positive encouragement, rather than bluntly calling people to task (even if they are acting in a problematic manner). Thank you. Ecoleetage ( talk) 14:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Is that you Dan? It's "Shadow" aka "Peregrine_Falcon" from WaW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowSix ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaving Wikipedia for a few weeks as a result of PetraSchelm's methods -- see here, for example: Talk:List_of_books_portraying_sexual_attraction_to_children_or_adolescents. She has massively disrupted the entry, unilaterally. She mischaracterizes that page's history, and other editor's comments. She implies that anyone who disagrees with her is pro-pedophile and disruptive. She refuses to acknowledge genuine controversy (over the meaning of "pedophilia"). And ironically she now accuses others of "soapboxing".
If you decide to block her again, I won't come to her defense. Thanks for reacting firmly to her previous unpleasant behavior. Subsequent events suggest to me that you were clearly right to do so. SocJan ( talk) 06:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do about this account, which I noticed on RC patrol. One contrib: adding "almost" somewhere it plainly wasn't helpful. After my warning, no further contribs (unless there are some deleted ones). Did I nip in the bud a vandalism-only account, or did I just bite a newbie? I don't have enough experience of this to know what to do next, and I don't have the tools to do anything... other than refer it to an admin. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As per your comments on my Talk Page: Please don't template the regulars is, according to that page, an "essay" and "not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." And using the word "ignorant" to in the course of a debate is designed strictly to demean other people. Please refrain from making comments that are not intended to encourage a positive discussion. Thank you. Ecoleetage ( talk) 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The answer: A statement which is not supported by any reputable scientific facts (as in your hypothetical case, a declaration of one race’s inferiority to other races) would certainly be considered ignorant; in the case you cited, a stronger word would be justified. However, no one made such a statement and your example is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.
You used the word “ignorant” to challenge concerns of whether a particular medical professional possesses a specific level of notability within his field and, thus, would qualify for Wikipedia coverage. You asserted that opinions that differed from yours in regard to this issue are “ignorant.”
However, no irrefutable facts have been presented (either by you or any other Wikipedia editor) to uphold your opinion as the be-all/end-all statement of fact. And you seem to forget that you are strictly stating an opinion, not a fact; the deletion article is an exchange of opinions to build a consensus on an article’s value, not a challenge to irrefutable facts about Dr. Klein's value to both his profession and this web site.
A friendly exchange would’ve found you stating that the rival view was “mistaken” or “off-base” – with those words, you would’ve acknowledged a disagreement, added your view that the rival opinion is lacking, and refrained from creating ill will with poisonous language – few linguists consider “ignorant” to be a positive word.
Opinions do not exist in their own space and energy – they are an extension of individual’s personality, mind and passion. In this case, they are an individual’s entry into what is supposed to be a mature conversation that will enrich the Wikipedia content base. You are not insulting an abstract concept; you are insulting a person by insulting how he thinks and how he expresses himself.
I would not be offended if someone said my opinions were "mistaken," but I take serious offense when someone says my opinions are "ignorant." Whether you intended to create ill will and intentionally demean a rival view is something I cannot determine. That you are deaf to the concerns raised by your choice of verbiage is something I cannot understand. Ecoleetage ( talk) 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
In my field, ignorance is not treated with negative connotations, but rather is simply the lack of knowledge. My apologies if you take it to be negative, as that's not my intention. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
...And since Eecoleetage deleted my comment off his talk page, I make free to repeat myself here (repetition being the mother of learning): Ignorance is lack of knowledge, not an insult. You seem, I am sorry to say, ignorant of the meaning of the word itself, Ecoleetage. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the dicdef(s). I myself am ignorant of many things, as is everyone - no one can know everything.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
21:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
cool...what did you mean by deeplink? xenocidic ( talk) 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you noticed but you made this edit after the page was protected. JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Without passing any judgment on the previous posts you've both made here, you two will not fight each other here. Talk to me, about things relevant to me. Not to each other, or about things not relevant to my position here. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No. I don't think there are. You might be able to get a compromise edit or such but the substance of that section looks neutral. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
SWATJester: You probably want to protect the talkpage of that Eleemosynary IP that you recently blocked. I've reverted some vandalism there a few times, but he will likely continue to re-add. You may want to get some of it oversighted as well. Might be time to either get a formal community block on him or at minimum contact the place of work linked to his primary IP and report abuse. 79.74.71.135 ( talk) 07:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
22:29, 4 April 2008 Swatjester (Talk | contribs) deleted "Photo-Me International" (per OTRS ticket # 2008040410014563)
It was User:Well Hater who called the other user a fucking bitch. NOT ME -- Wellwater Conspiracy ( talk) 19:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Okay
SJ, I just want to fully move on from whatever battles we have had in the past. I don't usually harbor ill-will for more than 10 minutes (unless in the case of anti-Semitism, which lasts a lot longer), but I really was pissed off at you during the ArbCom thing with Jim's battle with VO. I might have been sensitive to the issue that my service in the US Navy was demeaned (not really by you, but others). Now that I know you're an MoT and ex-servicemen, we have a lot more in common than not. Anyways, I might still disagree with you strongly on any number of stances you might have (and you me). But if I might offer virtual handshake, I hope you'll accept. Besides, there's a lot of cleaning up to do around here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok now I'm confused. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
When he said "exhaustive list" what did he mean?
--- Piazzajordan2 22:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah ok so I'm two days late... Mea culpa. Hope it was great! KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Any comments you have about location would be appreciated. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't actually live in the DC area. -- Jnelson09 ( talk) 17:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello there Swatjester/archive15,
We here at Wikiproject Law Enforcement are currently in the process of deciding wither or not to make this WikiProject Law Enforcement's official Barnstar award. Being that you are a member of Wikiproject Law Enforcement, we are humbly asking you to voice your opinion here about our new Barnstar.
Thank You and All the Best,
Mifter (
talk)
20:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
--
Mifter (
talk)
20:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The
April 2008 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 (
talk)
02:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see your work with Wikipedia:Wikimedia DC. You can see our page at meta:Wikimedia New York City, and our meetings are cataloged at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC and our archive pages (we started organizing as a chapter in November). Our first real outreach project was Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. My advice on meetups is here. I'd also suggest you contact other local groups such as Free Culture Georgetown, Free Culture Virginia Tech (if that's not too far), Internet Society of Greater Washington DC (if anyone still answers their e-mail), and the DC office of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Good luck!-- Pharos ( talk) 02:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the message I have taken on board what you have said. Christopher140691 ( talk) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that the above is stated correctly and that his rollback access should be given back. He should be taught how to use it not have it taken off him. Like every new user they need to be introduced the method not have it taken off them That normally leads to personal attacks or vandalism. Chubb enna itor 17:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you took it in the wrong way- I was simply saying that he should have a second chance to learn more about the tool. The Guettrada thing I had discovered she/he was under fire from other editors and give him/her support because the one thing I hate is when someone retires because of the hassle. Don't take this badly but you need to think more about what you say and actually take things in before expressing your views because then you might have a more nuetral view about things. As I believe part of the Bible tells us. Forgive people but let them know how you made them feel by a small note and get on with it. Please, take this in a calm view and not a strong and over the top one like some people do not aimed at you. Nothing I have said was to insult you. Chubb enna itor 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I was shocked by what you did. I still don't understand it. My gut says that you aren't that kind of person. Your actions said otherwise. I was very disappointed and deeply saddened by what you did. I'm not at all invested in most people around here - I have no sense of them as people. But there are a lot of people that you feel you know and that you have some respect for. And while I have disagreed with you on occasion, up until that point I had some respect for you and thought I knew you. I'm still puzzled, I still don't know what to make of what you were doing. I do know that Richard was stalked and threatened. So I know that your allegation that he was a liar when he said so was false. Irrelevant, of course, since we let people delete their user page for no reason. But also false.
I find your actions that do to be inconsistent with your actions in general here. But lacking any other explanation, I can only assume that that's also who you are. Guettarda ( talk) 17:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think my block was fair on its merits, but I was the wrong person to make the block (although, at the time, it didn't occur to me - I didn't realise I was undoing your deletion, since I got there via an email from SB, asking me to delete his page and explaining why). It wasn't on my mind until I saw your very personally focussed comments on ANI. My reaction shows that I have neither forgiven nor forgotten. But past is past - we all make mistakes (I believe you made one, you believe I made one, but hey, we're in agreement that someone made a mistake. The rest is commentary.) Anyway, KC likes you, so who am I to differ? I know your heart is in the right place. Guettarda ( talk) 20:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Swatjester. Could you please consider laying off Petra for a while - she's been the only editor on the ground so far that's been dealing with the recent spate of disruptive TOR IPs and throwaway accounts registered from and editing on TOR. Dmcdevit and I have both been very busy trying to root out all of this guy's accounts - personally, I think it might be ArbCom-banned editor Voice of Britain, who returned at the same time this nasty new TOR sockmaster ramped up his efforts. east.718 at 06:09, May 6, 2008
Petra's disruption hasn't been limited to the paedophilia articles. She stalked me to Hystero-epilepsy, where I had restored a valid external link (to Skeptic's Dictionary), and reverted 4 times. [2] She admitted on my complaint at the fringe theory noticeboard that her motivation for this wasn't that she actually cared, but that she hoped doing so would wear me down so I would quit "wikistalking Jack." (My edits by no means fit the definition of wikistalking. Hers certainly did.)
She's also continued to make thinly-veiled accusations of child abuser sympathy against established contributors, [3] in this case eleland.
Behaviour like this shows why Petra shouldn't be "laid off." A large portion of her edits are disruptive and noncontributory. -- AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 22:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Mistakes like that happen on occasion, especially when you've been at it for a while without a break. - MBK 004 03:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Swat, you're not exactly a neutral party. You note to me was a personal one, not in your role of administrator. I view WP:TOV as a policy and will suggest to others that they do the same. Bstone ( talk) 21:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[4] Tiptoety talk 22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Your actions are reviewed on ANI here. Best regards, NonvocalScream ( talk) 22:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Child_pornography&action=history
A while ago, you gave her something of an ultimatum. 'Schelm appears to be doing virtually the same thing whilst gaming the 3RR in the process. She continues to insult IP editors and treat their edits as virtually meaningless "disruption". Maybe this should be discussed by others, but I personally do not see any value in this hardened and previously warned POV warrior. 82.25.179.169 ( talk) 22:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I won't edit war over this again - please, though, stop adding lolcats. They are insulting to good faith users who are upset and bring a complaint to AN or ANI. They want something constructive being done, not mockery. Neıl ☎ 09:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Epic. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The secret no-watermark version of rolfbot is at http://wigflip.com/roflbot/no-watermark. Neıl ☎ 10:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting Club Penguin. The vandalism is just too much to handle PepsiPlunge13™ 13:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. It is gratifying to learn that another editor has noticed my edits. Flatscan ( talk) 00:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought you were just being sarcastic here. Then I checked out the diff. Why is this person still an admin? And what am I supposed to think of individuals who are want him to just get a peaceful time out? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Tsk tsk. What a post. From one of our
WP:Wikilove patrol and champions of political correctness, and warriors against un
CIVIL discourse. What am I to think?--
Filll (
talk)
07:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Look there are things going on here that I do not understand. I realize your friend is going through a bad time. I believe that being under the influence of various controlled substances and suffering through the death of someone close can alter someone's behavior drastically. So I sympathize, with him and with you, but... -- Filll ( talk) 14:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It does appear that you've misread the intent, Swat. I strongly suggest you retract your statement on Rfar. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The issue has been taken to AN. Lara ❤ Love 02:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker ( talk) 13:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just speaking as a friend of yours, Lara's outbursts have been shameful and rather embarrassing, but your tone on AN is coming off as patronizing and flippant. Seeing as you just rightly helped bring attention to another user in regard to this, I'd like to just nudge you a bit to use some better word choice Swat :) - M ask? 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I just woke up and see that this thread at WP:AN has been closed so I can't comment there futher (in any event I can see from Lara's response that my attempted civics lesson was quite futile). I don't know anything about this undertow business (nor do I want to find out), and I thought that some of your comments, like the 'e-boyfriend' one, were off base, but I found Lara's comments quite shocking. I understand WP:BATTLE and all that, but when some-one starts arguing with a straight face that 'white pride' is not a form of racism, they need to be taken to task in some way. So I am with you in this regard. Brrr-r-r. Disturbing, to say the least. Nsk92 ( talk) 12:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah - "All non-racists unite behind Swat!" can be our banner... or something like that. :-P (puppy is in a mood, sorry) KillerChihuahua ?!? 18:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted you to know, I completely support your actions here. I've dealt with people like this in real life before as well, and though they spout off BS like that they invariably believe that because they can point to "white supremacists" they are not racist. Although I am shocked, I am sadly not at all surprised this made its way into WP, given the "controls" in place and the fact that it is so easy for like-minded people to group up. Amerique dialectics 22:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:ANI#User:LaraLove's controversial userbox. Equazcion •✗/ C • 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[5]. I thought quite hard about that. I am no lover of racism, but I don't think that we need to impute motives. Please consider carefully what, if anything, might help to fix this argument and get Lara down off the ceiling. Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 21:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Another pic from the collection, for services rendered. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Somehow, I'm reminded of the Chipoll... El_C 03:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:BIA. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bstone ( talk) 03:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog
Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Was originally posted on my user talk page; I let the editor know that you're a better source, and that I was posting this here. --
John Broughton
(♫♫)
15:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If you would like to put a report about the meeting at our regional US Wikimedia chapters-in-formation blog
Wiki Northeast, we'd be glad to have you. If you want, you can just
e-mail me and I'll make a guest post under your name. BTW, thanks for the your books, which were great prizes at
Wikipedia Takes Manhattan!--
Pharos (
talk)
18:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Like I asked before, can a Myspace be used to give official credit? I'm talking about Cory Gunz's MySpace, the source of the debate. Could I use his or Lil Wayne's? I mean, they have to be reliable, they're official artists and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't lie about credits. Especially ones about a song. Cory Gunz's MySpace credits him as a featured artist. Genevieve-Tamerlaine ( talk) 00:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
There are some concerns regarding your block of Malleus Fatuarum on User talk:Malleus Fatuarum. Please comment. - auburnpilot talk 23:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"You'll note the blatant personal attack against ST47 that I removed from his userpage, as well as his recent incivility at WP:RFA, on my talk page, on ST47's talk page, etc" (from Malleus' talk page). Where's the attack you removed? Where's the incivility on this talk page? It'd help analyse the situation if this was pointed out—I for one can't find it anywhere. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 06:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Paedophilia is a sexual preference for children. Petra wishes it to be defined instead as including the act of child molestation. Despite the objections of myself, User:Jovin Lambton, User:Flyer22, User:Estemi, and User:MarionTheLibrarian, Petra has stated her intent to revert my version of the definition and ignore the justifications I have given for it. [7] I responded to this by seeking wider community input at the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. She says that this is a waste of time; she's "just going to revert" me regardless. [8]
Refusing to discuss content disputes in favour of steadfast reversion is incompatable with the spirit of a wiki. I don't see what else I can do besides participate in an edit war if she is allowed to do this. :/ -- AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 00:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Whilst this administrator did tell PetraSchelm that she would be indef blocked if she continued her behaviour, I very much understand any decision to duck out of anything as damaging as properly dealing with a "good" editor. Are there any other admins who take a bold approach to inflammatory Anti-pedophile activism? J-Lambton T/ C 22:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
The
March 2008 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 (
talk)
02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me it you who is doing vandalism. I created a page Deck 13 which created popular games. What is the reason for the deletion?. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 04:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/68.39.174.238? There is an IP user who insists on editing the "No" votes of three other users and keeps moving them from "No" to "Neutral". You have reverted him once and I have reverted him twice. I tried to explain to him, both on his talk page and on the talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/68.39.174.238 that editing other people's recorded votes is inappropriate, but he insists on doing it. I am not sure how to proceed next... Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 09:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly what have I vandalized? Just about all I've been doing in the past few weeks is expanding infoboxes on TV station articles. New World Man ( talk) 08:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed you undid my large edit on pro-ana a little while ago. Was this because I clobbered something by mistake? — 80.237.187.34 ( talk) 09:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible for the Seven Society, Order of the Crown and Dagger page to be restored? If so, how? I am an alumni member of the group. There were several nonmembers attempting to put false information on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldominion ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
A Google search shows fewer than 2500 hits on this term, nearly 90% of which refer to Ryan's mass commutation of death sentences in Illinois, and are mostly from news accounts. Of the remaining 300 or so, virtually none of which are from legal sources (and show no consistent meaning). Could you provide some citations from legal sources for this rather strange assertion? Minos P. Dautrieve ( talk) 20:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
According to Westlaw:
⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
--Please excuse the shoddy citations, I'm just cut/pasting the cites from westlaw. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that the majority of reference to it is related to Ryan's mass commutations; however that was a major event, and the type of usage in the opinions implies notability to me. If several federal and state courts are willing to use the term, then I don't believe it's a neologism. Especially since the term Blanket as a modifier (meaning all-covering) to clemency (forgiveness) is, by virtue of common sense, a word. Just because it is a newer use, does not mean that it is a neologism, or that it is inappropriate for inclusion. The court cases establish its notability; as does the massive amount of coverage of Mr. Ryan's actions. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I have replied to you on my talk page, to keep discussion in one place. - PetraSchelm ( talk) 21:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Swatjester, I saw you were a bit upset and I just wanted to wish you a nice day, and thank you for your tireless contributions. It's a beautiful day where I am and I'm going to go outside for a bike ride. I don't know what the weather's like in DC, maybe a cup of tea is more appropriate there? :) Jfire ( talk) 21:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It's now "Calm". ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I smell POV-pushing even by administrators. Please check contribution history, the {fact} tab was added on March after someone intentionally removed the citation. I already showed on Talk:Tibet#Grunfield_souce that the source is NPOV, and the remover gave me no reply.
Even if it is really unsourced, wasn't it too early remove the whole content as the {cn} tab was just added few weeks ago? 219.79.252.210 ( talk) 15:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I have also suggested replacing the said introduction paragraphs by a short one with NPOV wording. See Talk:Tibet#article's_introduction and feel free to discuss. 219.79.252.210 ( talk) 15:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Swatjester, Thank you for the work you've done with maintaining Wikipedia sites as an admin. I've seen recently that you, or some of your fellow editors, have deleted a page regarding the Seven Society, Order of the Crown & Dagger, from the College of William and Mary in Virginia. I'm writing to ask you to please restore the page. As a student at the College, I've received messages from this group since I was a sophomore and I can speak to the groups relevance on campus and the high regard to which students hold it. The group is well known for it's banners supporting campus events and for it's public showing of support for campus leaders. I've been monitoring the site and I've seen some vandalism back and forth lately, no doubt from members of other groups or people not affiliated with the Sevens. Frankly, and with supreme honesty, I can say that this group is the most visible and pertinent of all secret societies on the W&M campus, with members like Earl Gregg Swem (our campus library is named after him) and Walter J. Zable (our football stadium is named after him). I'm writing to ask you to restore the page and put it on a protected status so that others can appreciated the knowledge of the good work this group does. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. I'm aware of the work you've done and thankful for your assistance with this.
-W&M1693 —Preceding unsigned comment added by W&M1693 ( talk • contribs) 04:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
You might want to redact that, and mumble a sheepish apology. I'd be interested to know where you picked up the idea, though. -- Relata refero ( disp.) 08:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just saw that you unblocked Mario1987. I am disappointed that you did so without making any preconditions. I will give him vandalism warnings as soon as he creates another inaccurate and incomplete football article without doing any basic research. There was consensus to do this at WP:FOOTY (before he was blocked) because it is disruptive, and and he absolutely failed to respond to any constructive criticism or advice on his talkpage carrying on regardless. Perhaps you didn't see the backlog of poorly referenced, misleading and inaccurate articles he rushed out. Only 20% of them have been fixed/deleted so far. I am also rather surprised that he basically got away with such obvious sockpuppetry. English peasant 08:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there,
I noticed you removed the Scientology section from the Latham and Walkins page citing an OTRS complaint? I was wondering if I should re-add the section or not, as it appeared to be more-or-less properly cited at its last point of existence. (I've since made some copyedits, but I have not re-added the section at this time.) I'm afraid this is the first time I've heard of OTRS so I'm not sure of the procedures.
PS: Ignore the retired thing on my page for now :P Logical2u ( talk) 20:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi - can you please explain rationale for recent edits to remove CoS references from L&W page?
This has received magazine coverage, is ongoing, and is notable. L&W clients, and those with an interest in L&W are likely to also be interested in the information you removed. No explanation was provided on the Discussion page, just OTRS # 2008040810016483 in your comment, and I understand that OTRS requests are confidential - so that note tells us nothing about why it was removed.
That leaves an assumption of 'because L&W didn't like it' - and I'm sure (hope) there's more to it than that.
More than prepared to consider this in the scope of WP policies, but need the rationale to justify it. For context: http://forums.enturbulation.org/15-breaking-news/anonymous-hate-crimes-packets-distributed-houston-9-april-2008-a-8212/2/
Thanks 219.89.194.217 ( talk) 01:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
As I told you I cannot. If you revert it, I will semi-protect the page. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Conradine dynasty is back; I don't know on what basis you judged it as a hoax, and I'm reluctant to do the same myself without more data. Up to you. DS ( talk) 15:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
== Mens Room Radio Program == Why are you changing the article and removing what the cast of the show read on air live, when they said it was accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Machineking1313 ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I just saw you opining on the battlegrounds... way to go! Tvoz | talk 17:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [1] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.-- Filll ( talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Terrorism WikiProject April 2008 Newsletter |
![]() |
News
| ||
Archives • Discussion |
Sherurcij ( Speaker for the Dead) 05:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
As per your comments on my Talk Page: I will state that while your comments regarding Wikipedia communications may have been intended as a sincere effort to maintain civility, it was nonetheless perceived as a "cut it out or I will personally block you from editing" threat. For my efforts in managing professional and vocational environments, I've always found that it easier to bring about desired results by using diplomatic language and a positive encouragement, rather than bluntly calling people to task (even if they are acting in a problematic manner). Thank you. Ecoleetage ( talk) 14:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Is that you Dan? It's "Shadow" aka "Peregrine_Falcon" from WaW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowSix ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm leaving Wikipedia for a few weeks as a result of PetraSchelm's methods -- see here, for example: Talk:List_of_books_portraying_sexual_attraction_to_children_or_adolescents. She has massively disrupted the entry, unilaterally. She mischaracterizes that page's history, and other editor's comments. She implies that anyone who disagrees with her is pro-pedophile and disruptive. She refuses to acknowledge genuine controversy (over the meaning of "pedophilia"). And ironically she now accuses others of "soapboxing".
If you decide to block her again, I won't come to her defense. Thanks for reacting firmly to her previous unpleasant behavior. Subsequent events suggest to me that you were clearly right to do so. SocJan ( talk) 06:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do about this account, which I noticed on RC patrol. One contrib: adding "almost" somewhere it plainly wasn't helpful. After my warning, no further contribs (unless there are some deleted ones). Did I nip in the bud a vandalism-only account, or did I just bite a newbie? I don't have enough experience of this to know what to do next, and I don't have the tools to do anything... other than refer it to an admin. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
As per your comments on my Talk Page: Please don't template the regulars is, according to that page, an "essay" and "not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." And using the word "ignorant" to in the course of a debate is designed strictly to demean other people. Please refrain from making comments that are not intended to encourage a positive discussion. Thank you. Ecoleetage ( talk) 16:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The answer: A statement which is not supported by any reputable scientific facts (as in your hypothetical case, a declaration of one race’s inferiority to other races) would certainly be considered ignorant; in the case you cited, a stronger word would be justified. However, no one made such a statement and your example is completely irrelevant to the question at hand.
You used the word “ignorant” to challenge concerns of whether a particular medical professional possesses a specific level of notability within his field and, thus, would qualify for Wikipedia coverage. You asserted that opinions that differed from yours in regard to this issue are “ignorant.”
However, no irrefutable facts have been presented (either by you or any other Wikipedia editor) to uphold your opinion as the be-all/end-all statement of fact. And you seem to forget that you are strictly stating an opinion, not a fact; the deletion article is an exchange of opinions to build a consensus on an article’s value, not a challenge to irrefutable facts about Dr. Klein's value to both his profession and this web site.
A friendly exchange would’ve found you stating that the rival view was “mistaken” or “off-base” – with those words, you would’ve acknowledged a disagreement, added your view that the rival opinion is lacking, and refrained from creating ill will with poisonous language – few linguists consider “ignorant” to be a positive word.
Opinions do not exist in their own space and energy – they are an extension of individual’s personality, mind and passion. In this case, they are an individual’s entry into what is supposed to be a mature conversation that will enrich the Wikipedia content base. You are not insulting an abstract concept; you are insulting a person by insulting how he thinks and how he expresses himself.
I would not be offended if someone said my opinions were "mistaken," but I take serious offense when someone says my opinions are "ignorant." Whether you intended to create ill will and intentionally demean a rival view is something I cannot determine. That you are deaf to the concerns raised by your choice of verbiage is something I cannot understand. Ecoleetage ( talk) 17:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
In my field, ignorance is not treated with negative connotations, but rather is simply the lack of knowledge. My apologies if you take it to be negative, as that's not my intention. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
...And since Eecoleetage deleted my comment off his talk page, I make free to repeat myself here (repetition being the mother of learning): Ignorance is lack of knowledge, not an insult. You seem, I am sorry to say, ignorant of the meaning of the word itself, Ecoleetage. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the dicdef(s). I myself am ignorant of many things, as is everyone - no one can know everything.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
21:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
cool...what did you mean by deeplink? xenocidic ( talk) 02:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if you noticed but you made this edit after the page was protected. JoshuaZ ( talk) 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Without passing any judgment on the previous posts you've both made here, you two will not fight each other here. Talk to me, about things relevant to me. Not to each other, or about things not relevant to my position here. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No. I don't think there are. You might be able to get a compromise edit or such but the substance of that section looks neutral. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
SWATJester: You probably want to protect the talkpage of that Eleemosynary IP that you recently blocked. I've reverted some vandalism there a few times, but he will likely continue to re-add. You may want to get some of it oversighted as well. Might be time to either get a formal community block on him or at minimum contact the place of work linked to his primary IP and report abuse. 79.74.71.135 ( talk) 07:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
22:29, 4 April 2008 Swatjester (Talk | contribs) deleted "Photo-Me International" (per OTRS ticket # 2008040410014563)
It was User:Well Hater who called the other user a fucking bitch. NOT ME -- Wellwater Conspiracy ( talk) 19:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Okay
SJ, I just want to fully move on from whatever battles we have had in the past. I don't usually harbor ill-will for more than 10 minutes (unless in the case of anti-Semitism, which lasts a lot longer), but I really was pissed off at you during the ArbCom thing with Jim's battle with VO. I might have been sensitive to the issue that my service in the US Navy was demeaned (not really by you, but others). Now that I know you're an MoT and ex-servicemen, we have a lot more in common than not. Anyways, I might still disagree with you strongly on any number of stances you might have (and you me). But if I might offer virtual handshake, I hope you'll accept. Besides, there's a lot of cleaning up to do around here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok now I'm confused. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
When he said "exhaustive list" what did he mean?
--- Piazzajordan2 22:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah ok so I'm two days late... Mea culpa. Hope it was great! KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Any comments you have about location would be appreciated. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't actually live in the DC area. -- Jnelson09 ( talk) 17:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello there Swatjester/archive15,
We here at Wikiproject Law Enforcement are currently in the process of deciding wither or not to make this WikiProject Law Enforcement's official Barnstar award. Being that you are a member of Wikiproject Law Enforcement, we are humbly asking you to voice your opinion here about our new Barnstar.
Thank You and All the Best,
Mifter (
talk)
20:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
--
Mifter (
talk)
20:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The
April 2008 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 (
talk)
02:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see your work with Wikipedia:Wikimedia DC. You can see our page at meta:Wikimedia New York City, and our meetings are cataloged at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC and our archive pages (we started organizing as a chapter in November). Our first real outreach project was Wikipedia Takes Manhattan. My advice on meetups is here. I'd also suggest you contact other local groups such as Free Culture Georgetown, Free Culture Virginia Tech (if that's not too far), Internet Society of Greater Washington DC (if anyone still answers their e-mail), and the DC office of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Good luck!-- Pharos ( talk) 02:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the message I have taken on board what you have said. Christopher140691 ( talk) 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that the above is stated correctly and that his rollback access should be given back. He should be taught how to use it not have it taken off him. Like every new user they need to be introduced the method not have it taken off them That normally leads to personal attacks or vandalism. Chubb enna itor 17:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you took it in the wrong way- I was simply saying that he should have a second chance to learn more about the tool. The Guettrada thing I had discovered she/he was under fire from other editors and give him/her support because the one thing I hate is when someone retires because of the hassle. Don't take this badly but you need to think more about what you say and actually take things in before expressing your views because then you might have a more nuetral view about things. As I believe part of the Bible tells us. Forgive people but let them know how you made them feel by a small note and get on with it. Please, take this in a calm view and not a strong and over the top one like some people do not aimed at you. Nothing I have said was to insult you. Chubb enna itor 18:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I was shocked by what you did. I still don't understand it. My gut says that you aren't that kind of person. Your actions said otherwise. I was very disappointed and deeply saddened by what you did. I'm not at all invested in most people around here - I have no sense of them as people. But there are a lot of people that you feel you know and that you have some respect for. And while I have disagreed with you on occasion, up until that point I had some respect for you and thought I knew you. I'm still puzzled, I still don't know what to make of what you were doing. I do know that Richard was stalked and threatened. So I know that your allegation that he was a liar when he said so was false. Irrelevant, of course, since we let people delete their user page for no reason. But also false.
I find your actions that do to be inconsistent with your actions in general here. But lacking any other explanation, I can only assume that that's also who you are. Guettarda ( talk) 17:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think my block was fair on its merits, but I was the wrong person to make the block (although, at the time, it didn't occur to me - I didn't realise I was undoing your deletion, since I got there via an email from SB, asking me to delete his page and explaining why). It wasn't on my mind until I saw your very personally focussed comments on ANI. My reaction shows that I have neither forgiven nor forgotten. But past is past - we all make mistakes (I believe you made one, you believe I made one, but hey, we're in agreement that someone made a mistake. The rest is commentary.) Anyway, KC likes you, so who am I to differ? I know your heart is in the right place. Guettarda ( talk) 20:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 21:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Swatjester. Could you please consider laying off Petra for a while - she's been the only editor on the ground so far that's been dealing with the recent spate of disruptive TOR IPs and throwaway accounts registered from and editing on TOR. Dmcdevit and I have both been very busy trying to root out all of this guy's accounts - personally, I think it might be ArbCom-banned editor Voice of Britain, who returned at the same time this nasty new TOR sockmaster ramped up his efforts. east.718 at 06:09, May 6, 2008
Petra's disruption hasn't been limited to the paedophilia articles. She stalked me to Hystero-epilepsy, where I had restored a valid external link (to Skeptic's Dictionary), and reverted 4 times. [2] She admitted on my complaint at the fringe theory noticeboard that her motivation for this wasn't that she actually cared, but that she hoped doing so would wear me down so I would quit "wikistalking Jack." (My edits by no means fit the definition of wikistalking. Hers certainly did.)
She's also continued to make thinly-veiled accusations of child abuser sympathy against established contributors, [3] in this case eleland.
Behaviour like this shows why Petra shouldn't be "laid off." A large portion of her edits are disruptive and noncontributory. -- AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 22:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Mistakes like that happen on occasion, especially when you've been at it for a while without a break. - MBK 004 03:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Swat, you're not exactly a neutral party. You note to me was a personal one, not in your role of administrator. I view WP:TOV as a policy and will suggest to others that they do the same. Bstone ( talk) 21:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[4] Tiptoety talk 22:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Your actions are reviewed on ANI here. Best regards, NonvocalScream ( talk) 22:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Child_pornography&action=history
A while ago, you gave her something of an ultimatum. 'Schelm appears to be doing virtually the same thing whilst gaming the 3RR in the process. She continues to insult IP editors and treat their edits as virtually meaningless "disruption". Maybe this should be discussed by others, but I personally do not see any value in this hardened and previously warned POV warrior. 82.25.179.169 ( talk) 22:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I won't edit war over this again - please, though, stop adding lolcats. They are insulting to good faith users who are upset and bring a complaint to AN or ANI. They want something constructive being done, not mockery. Neıl ☎ 09:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Epic. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The secret no-watermark version of rolfbot is at http://wigflip.com/roflbot/no-watermark. Neıl ☎ 10:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting Club Penguin. The vandalism is just too much to handle PepsiPlunge13™ 13:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. It is gratifying to learn that another editor has noticed my edits. Flatscan ( talk) 00:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I thought you were just being sarcastic here. Then I checked out the diff. Why is this person still an admin? And what am I supposed to think of individuals who are want him to just get a peaceful time out? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Tsk tsk. What a post. From one of our
WP:Wikilove patrol and champions of political correctness, and warriors against un
CIVIL discourse. What am I to think?--
Filll (
talk)
07:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Look there are things going on here that I do not understand. I realize your friend is going through a bad time. I believe that being under the influence of various controlled substances and suffering through the death of someone close can alter someone's behavior drastically. So I sympathize, with him and with you, but... -- Filll ( talk) 14:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It does appear that you've misread the intent, Swat. I strongly suggest you retract your statement on Rfar. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The issue has been taken to AN. Lara ❤ Love 02:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker ( talk) 13:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, just speaking as a friend of yours, Lara's outbursts have been shameful and rather embarrassing, but your tone on AN is coming off as patronizing and flippant. Seeing as you just rightly helped bring attention to another user in regard to this, I'd like to just nudge you a bit to use some better word choice Swat :) - M ask? 02:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I just woke up and see that this thread at WP:AN has been closed so I can't comment there futher (in any event I can see from Lara's response that my attempted civics lesson was quite futile). I don't know anything about this undertow business (nor do I want to find out), and I thought that some of your comments, like the 'e-boyfriend' one, were off base, but I found Lara's comments quite shocking. I understand WP:BATTLE and all that, but when some-one starts arguing with a straight face that 'white pride' is not a form of racism, they need to be taken to task in some way. So I am with you in this regard. Brrr-r-r. Disturbing, to say the least. Nsk92 ( talk) 12:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah - "All non-racists unite behind Swat!" can be our banner... or something like that. :-P (puppy is in a mood, sorry) KillerChihuahua ?!? 18:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted you to know, I completely support your actions here. I've dealt with people like this in real life before as well, and though they spout off BS like that they invariably believe that because they can point to "white supremacists" they are not racist. Although I am shocked, I am sadly not at all surprised this made its way into WP, given the "controls" in place and the fact that it is so easy for like-minded people to group up. Amerique dialectics 22:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:ANI#User:LaraLove's controversial userbox. Equazcion •✗/ C • 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[5]. I thought quite hard about that. I am no lover of racism, but I don't think that we need to impute motives. Please consider carefully what, if anything, might help to fix this argument and get Lara down off the ceiling. Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 21:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Another pic from the collection, for services rendered. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Somehow, I'm reminded of the Chipoll... El_C 03:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:BIA. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Bstone ( talk) 03:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog
Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Was originally posted on my user talk page; I let the editor know that you're a better source, and that I was posting this here. --
John Broughton
(♫♫)
15:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
If you would like to put a report about the meeting at our regional US Wikimedia chapters-in-formation blog
Wiki Northeast, we'd be glad to have you. If you want, you can just
e-mail me and I'll make a guest post under your name. BTW, thanks for the your books, which were great prizes at
Wikipedia Takes Manhattan!--
Pharos (
talk)
18:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Like I asked before, can a Myspace be used to give official credit? I'm talking about Cory Gunz's MySpace, the source of the debate. Could I use his or Lil Wayne's? I mean, they have to be reliable, they're official artists and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't lie about credits. Especially ones about a song. Cory Gunz's MySpace credits him as a featured artist. Genevieve-Tamerlaine ( talk) 00:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
There are some concerns regarding your block of Malleus Fatuarum on User talk:Malleus Fatuarum. Please comment. - auburnpilot talk 23:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
"You'll note the blatant personal attack against ST47 that I removed from his userpage, as well as his recent incivility at WP:RFA, on my talk page, on ST47's talk page, etc" (from Malleus' talk page). Where's the attack you removed? Where's the incivility on this talk page? It'd help analyse the situation if this was pointed out—I for one can't find it anywhere. dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 06:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Paedophilia is a sexual preference for children. Petra wishes it to be defined instead as including the act of child molestation. Despite the objections of myself, User:Jovin Lambton, User:Flyer22, User:Estemi, and User:MarionTheLibrarian, Petra has stated her intent to revert my version of the definition and ignore the justifications I have given for it. [7] I responded to this by seeking wider community input at the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. She says that this is a waste of time; she's "just going to revert" me regardless. [8]
Refusing to discuss content disputes in favour of steadfast reversion is incompatable with the spirit of a wiki. I don't see what else I can do besides participate in an edit war if she is allowed to do this. :/ -- AnotherSolipsist ( talk) 00:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Whilst this administrator did tell PetraSchelm that she would be indef blocked if she continued her behaviour, I very much understand any decision to duck out of anything as damaging as properly dealing with a "good" editor. Are there any other admins who take a bold approach to inflammatory Anti-pedophile activism? J-Lambton T/ C 22:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)