User talk:Swatjester/archive16

Page links

As previously discussed, links are Tighina and Bender, Moldova. Thanks! Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)s

New users

...do not make this kind of edit to AfD on their sixth contribution, nor this on their eighth contribution. Also the proliferation of what appears to be "newbie" test pages in between advanced edits and expert knowledge of policies and guidelines is highly suspect. I've worked closely with new editors off and on for almost four years and I've never seen anything like it. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And that makes the editor unable to comment at RFA how? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 11:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You recently wrote: "I said he wasn't an SPA. He may be a sockpuppet, but that alone is not reason to indent his vote since there are legitimate reasons for sockpuppet accounts." This has already been discussed. See here: "'[s]ockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates' per the Privatemusings Arbitration Committee ruling." We have no evidence that the account in question is a sockpuppet, however, based on the contrib history so far, I would be extremely surprised to discover that it was not. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that supercedes WP:SOCK. But regardless, there is no evidence that Fraudy was a sockpuppet, just that he was not a new user. He could be an old user that has left and came back under a different name. That's already happened once on Giggy's RFA, per the Checkuser thing incident. There's nothing that disallows a user from coming back under a different name and participating in internal discussions. Furthermore, nothing about our sock policy says that he can't have an account for article writing, and an account for other affairs: in fact it's expressly permitted per WP:SOCK#Legit. I'm not comfortable with denying a contributor who, lets face it, has a decent enough editing history thus far, the right to contribute to the discussion of an admin request, especially a controversial one. The B'crats can always discount it if they like, but we shouldn't be disenfranchising opinions, especially in light of accusations of browbeating by the support crowd (note: not an accusation that you are one of those. I don't know who the alleged browbeaters are, just that it exists and for that reason we shouldn't be striking opposes) ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 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) 02:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: strange question

You wouldn't happen to have ever played a computer game called Dragonrealms, have you? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, never heard of the game. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Forgotten Realms something to do with it?--Serviam (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, or at least nothing that isn't incredibly tangential. Your username, Serviam, is a character name that someone I used to know used in that game.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Am, right, sorry. Serviam means "I will serve" in latin, which is what I intend to do here at wikipedia, writing articles and all. I do have RTW though, and that's a great game ;-).--Serviam (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Test edit

Test edit ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Successful, I'd gather? Thanks for dropping by my talk page with the after-the-fact support. Cheers ;> xenocidic (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, worked the way I wanted. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A new toy

Well, I picked up a new gun of my own recently. I now have a M1A. This is one sweet rifle, it going to become my main gun. Plinking, target practice, and hunting. Its a thing if beauty. Alyeska (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll send you pictures of mine. I ordered a full length tactical M1A, my project is to transform it into an M21/M25. They're so much fun. Balanced differently than I prefer though, but still fun.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

My idea is to do something like that too, though not actually go for Match quality. The basic M1A is still very accurate to begin with. I've already found a forward sling replacement by Versa-Pod that puts a rail on the front of the rifle without blocking the gas vent. This allows for the attachment of a Harris bipod adapted by rail. My big concern is finding a good scope mount for the M1A. I've found several, but the price just stinks. I don't need full rails, just your typical weaver mount setup for the M1A. Don't suppose you have any recommendations on a scope mount? BTW, I should post some pictures of my AR15. I've added some awesome mods to it. Now I just need to pick up the Aimpoint 3x magnifier to compliment my Aimpoint CompM2 M68. Alyeska (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want accuracy with optics and mounts, don't go cheap. I'd suggest using badger scope rings. For your rails, my M1A uses a VLTOR monolithic rail system, covers all 4 sides of the barrel, so I can mount a light, a PEQ 2 etc, if I chose (or, interestingly enough, a comfortable set of AR15 style handguards). This link is not the right one, but it will get you close enough.

Huge Pro-tip: go to Snipers Hide forums and use the board exchanges there to buy your gear at a WAY cheaper price. I bought my M24, M1A, and Glock 20 from there, as well as my custom Leupold Mk. IV LRT 3.5-10x optics for the M24 through that board. It's trustworthy, and you get amazing prices. I'm going to buy my ACOG when I get it through them. Unfortunately, I can't get my next rifle from them; it's going to be a Masada!⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Four sided rails sound tempting, but this isn't a tactical rifle for me. I'm just looking at a good scope mount itself. I will check that site out and see what people have to say, thanks for the advice. Alyeska (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Board of Trustees endorsement

Trusting you not to waver when it counts!

Although we've had serious disagreements in the past (and our politics is rather divergent, to say the least), I am endorsing your candidacy.

Regards, El_C 21:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, curiously enough I endorsed you too. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate it, both of you! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it legal to pile on? Well, I don't care, I'm going to do so too. Of course, my endorsement might be the kiss of death, so I won't be insulted if you delete my statement.  ;) Anyways, good luck soldier. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if I had been eligible to vote (fell about 100 edits short of the required number), I was also looking at you as a candidate that I would have supported. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Flower Power

Hi Swatjester,

In Vietnam, "Flower Power" was actually the 9th Division because of the flower apearance of its division patch.

The 25th was the "Electric Strawberry," and my unit, the 4th, had no name distinction, except for possibly the "Fucked-Up 4th."

Frank Camper 2nd Brigade LRRP (provisonal) 4th Inf Div RVN 1966-67

Fjcamper (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Electric Strawberry was a nickname, because 25ID were the Tropic Lightning, and their patch looked like a strawberry with a lightning bolt through it. The official nickname was still Tropic Lightning (and still is) source. 4ID was "Ivy" from its inception because IV, the roman numerals for 4, are pronounced "Eye" "Vee" or "Ivy", and its patch and crest are 4 Ivy leaves. I've never heard of the nickname for 9ID, but it makes sense from their patch. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your kind comments on my Wiktionary talk page (where I seldom look these days). The campaigning has been interesting. What I learned from interacting with you is how easily a potentially good working relationship can become sidetracked because of strong disagreement at the very beginning on a single issue. Too many of our colleagues never take the chance to go beyond whatever first issue may have divided them. Eclecticology (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember what it was we disagreed on, but I've always valued your expertise as a longstanding member of the community. The elections have certainly shown that you fit (mostly) what I'd be looking for in a board member if I wasn't running myself. Wherever the next months take me, on the board, or with WM DC, or wherever, I'll certainly have need for your expertise and advice. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Lil Wayne

Hello... could you unprotect this template? Or, in lieu of unprotecting, could you please remove the "singles" A Milli, Got Nuthin', and Mr. Carter? None of these records have been officially serviced to radio for adds and thus fail WP:MUSIC. The only one that might qualify would be A Milli, as there has been a decent amount of airplay from mixers and Program Directors playing it as an album cut, despite there having not been an official push from Universal Records for airplay. Thanks!--InDeBiz1 (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have a moment

I would appreciate your input at Talk:Derek_Smart#USENET_all_over_again. There is also a short discussion at User_talk:SheffieldSteel#Do_not_delete_entries_in_talk_pages which is relevant. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

looks resolved. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Practical realities

As I clearly stated, the majority of American readers of the Supreme Court article will not be able to distinguish judicial topics by which amendment of the Constitution are being interpreted. That is why the intro of the Supreme Court article does not list what each Court (be it Warren, Burger, Rehnquist or Roberts) has decided by amendment. You are making an obscure, technical point that would only be valid if you were willing to go through the WHOLE intro and reorganize its summaries of the decisions of each Court by amendment. Short of that, you are insisting on a point that won't help elucidate a lot for the average American reader. I know what I am talking about. I teach government and have taught many students. The point of Wikipedia and all other encyclopedic articles is to convey information as simply as possible. I think your point is unnecessarily legalistic. Regarding your unnecessary accusation, I was planning on changing both the Second and Fourth Amendment references at the same time, but could not leave an entire explanation for both in the explanation box due to a limit in the number of characters. That is why I had to use TWO edits to eliminate both and give a proper explanation. You just happened to jump in and reverse my first edit between my two planned edits, so I wasn't trying to do anything sneaky. BoBo (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a world encyclopedia, we do not have to tailor our entries specifically to american readers. We ensure that our content is accurate, and that accuracy is a must, even if it is an obscure technical point. You teach government, I study law. I know what I'm talking about as well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI

In regards to diff, there is no good evidence it was a typo. See wikt:especial. GRBerry

"especial" is rarely ever used in that form. It's used orders of magnitude less than the term "special". Since the E and S keys are near each other, it's highly likely it was a finger slip. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

inventing new words or concepts

hi I have invented a new word... but really don't know how to report it... it is a psychological concept... A disease... or a pathologic state that can be defined as a specific disease in the future... '''EMOTIONOMA''Italic text'''Bold text... this is the word... some people are extremely emotional... they usually fall in love... cry for small simple things... have deep and exagerated feelings about everything... it is not very bad but sometimes, better to say usually fall in love and the "love" grow up in them, get very big, as a tumor, but unfortunately the partner is not very emotional, is a normal person, so those people with EMOTIONOMA usually feel annoyed and frostrated by other people. it is a routine in their lives to fall in love and getting heart-broken, the condition EMOTIONOMA is more common in the women, and in histerionic personality disorder or trait.

Neologisms and newly invented words are not acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia. See this guide for what Wikipedia is not. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Attitude on AN/I?

As someone who considers you a friend I'm not eager to chastise you... But I was more than a little taken aback by your apparent attitude towards BlackKite over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#non-free_article_discussion_and_3RR. It may well be that BlackKite's approach was incorrect, but responses like "The link you provide above is a content guideline, it is not policy. Try again." such a condescending tone especially in relation what is clearly the most specific long established guideline available for the subject written on the project's official policy page for the related area ... is just exceptionally unhelpful. Had he been siting some userspace essay written by a banned user the "Try again" might be justified, but in this case? I hope in the future you can try a more relaxed style in situations like these as it might help defuse a tense situation, and when you have the benefit of righteousness behind you there is no need to be especially pointed, eventually your position will be heard. Perhaps I misread it all, ... My own tone has been misunderstood enough times to understand being in the position.. but if I did, others probably did too. So I think it's worth a little reflection. Thanks! --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of MARF

According to the deletion log, you speedily deleted the entry for the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation based on the fact that it was "blatant advertising." I agree the entry was poorly written but an organization with 34,000 G-hits should have either been nominated for AFD or tagged for cleanup. Thoughts? 69.91.82.182 (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It could have been the article for the white house; if it's blatant advertising it should be speedied, and if it can be rewritten in a neutral and acceptable style, then there you go. As an aside, Google is not the best indicator of notability. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 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) 20:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Could weigh in on this, please?

When you get a moment, could you weigh in on this please? Thanks! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal expertise

John and I have already addressed parts of the issue, but I would appreciate your further ruling on the matter based on your legal expertise on and off wiki here. I am in communication with the subject, and I directly asked if there was a problem so far and there was no mention of such. Ottava Rima (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. That's a lot. Question: Is the article in its current form this diff, as I am reading right now acceptable to you? If so, who is it unacceptable to? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I see right now. You have a notable figure, Windom, worthy of his own article (obviously). You have one relatively minor scandal, the false allegations against him. The scandal, and related litigation MIGHT be able to survive as its own article, but might not. However, it's certainly not a notable enough event to merit significant inclusion on Windom's article, due to BLP's requirement that we not give undue weight on biographies of living people to minor, non-notable events that are not representative of the person's history as a whole. This is a catch-22. Because of BLP, you can't put too much information about it on Windom's article: it's undue weight. However, you might have trouble doing its own article on the scandal or the litigation (which, being not a biography would not be subject to the BLP issues) because of notability concerns. As a side note to all of that, you have the issue that extensive coverage of Mr. Ivey, who as far as I can tell is not a notable person outside this case (correct me if I'm wrong), is not appropriate on Mr. Windom's article. Ivey similarly would not merit his own article. My suggestion is this. (And it's a suggestion, not a ruling, I don't have the authority to give those, and nothing here is a clear enough violation of policy to support an administrative action). If the parties can agree on the language that's currently on the page, which is only 4 sentences on the topic (1 short paragraph), my suggestion is to go with that language and move on. If people want more information, you can add an external link to a court document, or they can google it on their own. If the parties cannot agree on the language that's currently on the page, my suggestion is that the scandal event cannot likely survive deletion debate on its own, and due to BLP should not receive more than a few sentences in the article: any debate between the parties on the language of the article should keep that in mind. One of the things that people often miss is that just because we have the ability to spin things off onto subpages and make new articles on them, doesn't mean that we need to. Not all content needs to be included: part of the process of professional editing is that you can do much much more with less. Also, I urge the parties to avoid the issue of arguing over what is defamation, who defines it, and stop worrying about enforcement of law. If that becomes an issue, it will be an issue for the office and the OTRS legal team, not the talk page editors. Instead, focus on a version that comports to policy. Policy is written in such a way that if things truly follow it, you will not have to worry about defaming anyone. Like I said: the article looks pretty good the way it is right now. But any more detail starts to be pushing it a little. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Just a little more info - I've been searching for "biography" information (mostly neutral - records, voting information, initiatives, etc, that can flesh out his career) in order to expand the page and hopefully cover any "undue weight" by expanding the page to about double its current size (or more if possible). I have been in contact with the page's subject so I hope that we can fend off anything from his end before it could happen (not to say that it would). I don't really care about the "scandal" material and the original disputers seem to have gotten past it as an issue to fight over (they are slowly working on a compromise), but it seems that there is a dead horse that someone wishes to keep beating. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean....he's a Republican politician in Alabama. He's got to have SOME information out there. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is pertinent to the above. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my proposal for spinning the content off on its own article wasn't so much to expand the content, but rather to include in the main article only a summary section of only a few sentences, indicating Windom won a libel case. From what I've seen, a summary like that would allow the material to presented neutrally and at whatever length is appropriate, but being in a separate article I get the impression fewer people would make the effort to review the article, and thus it would likely get very little attention. With the 1600 articles or so dealing with Windom in the Birmingham paper though, I do get the impression the subject is probably notable enough for a separate article. John Carter (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In support of Operation COOKIE MONSTER (OCM) I'm presenting WikiCookies in appreciation for military service to the United States. Happy Independence Day! Ndunruh (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate?

Then how come a remix section is in almost every other song with a remix? Its good to have the remix section because its part of the subject of the song itself. Chris Iz Cali (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not in every other song with a remix, just like songs that have been covered by other artists aren't in every single article about the song. The remixes are also non-notable, and remixes that are notable enough end up meriting their own articles. As well, the remixes have no verifiable sources, and don't meet our requirements for inclusion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia Meetup

Yo, do you know if any discussion or planning has taken place for another DC Wikipedia Meetup? I'm from Philly, but might be able to make it down. Waarmstr (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There is plan for one in August, but nothing's been started. I'll drop a note to SchuminWeb, and Kirill, Raul654, and the other people to see who's interested. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Where would this DC meet up be? (not that I'd ever be able to have an opportunity to leave either one of the libraries or the archives) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The last one was at Pizza Uno in Union Station, which seems to be a good compromise location for mostly everyone involved. Plus they seem to like us. WE're doing them about every 4 months or so. This will be number 5.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

New C&C template dispute

Seems there is a new template dispute going on. Since you're a proponent of the template's current revision, I thought you might want to have your say.

The discussion is being held here. Kalamrir (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A Milli Remix

wat r u talkin about?? there is a chamillionaire remix of a milli & it is up on his website for download. i dont get why that can't be on there.Lil Drift (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Not everything that exists belongs on Wikipedia. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 12:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi there. While looking at an unrelated matter, I was surprised to see this flag on your account. As you're already a sysop and exempt by default, is there a reason why you need this? Just curious more than anything else ... - Alison ^❤ 17:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, at the time that I put it on, I was unaware that Sysops had that permission by default. I was testing out an Ironkey to see if it could bypass some surveillance and blocking software on my work computer (it did), and to see if it could still edit Wikipedia with all the security functions turned on (it can). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah - that makes sense :) I was kinda wondering. Just to prevent others' getting confuzzled about this, I'm going to just turn it back off. Thanks! - Alison ^❤ 19:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it I'd checked in the logs first, I'd have seen the reason. Duh! :) - Alison ^❤ 19:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As a question, what unrelated matter led you to be looking into me? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

A certain well-known editor was using TOR and as they're not an admin, I was wondering if they had their exempt bit set. It had come up as part of another checkuser - nothing nefarious. Then I saw yours, with the 'sysop' tag beside it - Alison ^❤ 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The special barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		I, User:Xizes award you this barnstar for a one-of-a-kind user page that looks totally awesome and "MySpace-ish". Very unique design and idea. --Xizes(talk) 03:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's actually designed on Facebook, hence "Swatbook" :P. Soxred 93 15:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

SOCOM

are you jester from socom , who use to be in a clan called "Operation Kamikaze"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.30.153 (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding OTRS ticket #2008071410044846

Hey, I saw that you added the info about this ticket # to the Indiana Gregg article, which was subject to some controversy. I'd like to ask if you could reveal the details about this ticket to me if possible for you. I became involved with the article while reverting vandalism and tried to rephrase the controversial section to be NPOV and cleaned up (current revision) which then in turn unfortunately meant that I was now one of the parties involved. Anyway, I'd like to understand the reasons behind the problem and thus I'd like to know about the ticket (having not heard about this artist ever before). If you don't want to write the details on a talk page, I'd be happy with an email as well of course. Regards. --SoWhy ^Talk 21:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot for privacy reasons. I have not actually looked into the conduct of the editors at the moment, or even who they are, just that I noticed it was under a somewhat nasty edit war, and there are tickets on the subject that are ongoing, and for that reason I wanted to issue a blanket warning to editors on the page that disruption won't be tolerated. Obviously regular editing, NPOV-ifiying, and vandalism are perfectly acceptable, and you absolutely should continue to do so. The warning was simply meant to supplement the page protection and let the edit warriors know they need to start playing by the rules so I can figure out what's going on here (I'm well aware of the controversy itself, I'm referring to the issues on this particular page). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I am quite certain that it was not directed at me but I just was curious on what the whole thing was about, having no real idea about the subject in question. But I understand of course privacy concerns in this case and will not bug you further. Keep up the good work! :-) --SoWhy ^Talk 10:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Plaut

Hiya, I was looking through the "indef-protected" articles, and saw this one, Steven Plaut, which has been protected for nearly a year. What do you think of the idea of unprotecting it? I've been having some success with untangling complex disputes, plus we have the Israel-Palestine articles ArbCom case to authorize some discretionary sanctions on the article in case things get out of hand. So, would you be willing to unprotect, or would it be alright if I unprotected? Thanks, Elonka 01:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, that was protected way too long. Yeah, I dropped it down to semi. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 13:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.  :) I'll keep an eye on it too, in case it starts smoldering again. --Elonka 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Your block of Littleredm&m and Wettendass2008

Thought you may wanna have a look at this. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Learned Hand peer review

Sorry to pester the Swatjester, but I wonder if you could possibly spare the time to check Learned Hand over? Slp1 and I have put it up for peer review, prior to a submission for FAC. I expect you know that the idea is to bring this article to FA as a tribute to Newyorkbrad. (In his final message, he wrote: "I am sorry for the pages that never got written and the FA that never got done.") We'd appreciate a peer review from someone who knows American law, since the two of us who have been mainly writing the page are not American. Just a glance over the terminology would help. All the best. qp10qp (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. If the FA goes smoothly, could I suggest that Christopher Columbus Langdell be the next featured article candidate? It's a shame that one of the foremost legal scholars of our time has such a weak article. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Unneeded Warning

I already admitted I was wrong and I already recused myself from any more involvement, I didn't need another person to yell at me. See this edit. Cheers. Q ^{T C} 21:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't yelling at you, just dropping a friendly message, since you probably couldn't have known about the OTRS and email issues. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I did know about the OTRS issues wrt the blocklog for JRH, which is why I recused myself, too much drama to bother with. I already had the tagteam of User:Delennart and User:Pchip leave me messages about it, and after leaving Delennart a message I was hoping I could get away. Q ^{T C} 21:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Scott Brown

I only reverted Scott Brown once and I did it because the editor was removing a large amount of text without an edit summary. If it turns out that this information was a BLP violation then I apologize. My intention, particularly when using the rollback tool or Huggle is to revert vandalism, not get involved in edit wars or BLP issues. If the edit in question had an edit summary, I wouldn't have touch it as I am not a mindless Huggle reverter. I even take to time to enter my own summary by hand in such situations. (except for page blankings) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

My edits

Hi Swatjester;
I only see your messages now, I didn't edit since your first message.

• Dion Ignacio - When I saw the redirect, I reverted and warned the user. It was, in fact, a big mistake. Since the user had provided an edit summary, I totally agree with you, I should never bit the user. When the same user did it again, I took a look at the article (created in August, 2006), the talk page, the user's talk page with a long warn history and the imdb entry. I believe that this redirect deserves at least a discussion.
• Chuck Allie - I also checked the article and reverted once the same user, without warn.

• Note that I only warn this user one time (I assume the mistake), despite user's history, after my first warn I noted the good faith.

• Scott P. Brown - The diff shows a removal of content, without an edit summary. Despite that, I could be more carefully after the first reverse,
• Major Garrett - A removal of content, without an edit summary. After the user explanation (that i only see now), I undid my revert and removed the warn.
  

Although I disagree with you in some points, the fact is that I've really abused using huggle and I'm really sorry. Regards, Caiaffa (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the above text this morning (for me). After a long day of work, I could realize how disruptive I was in my efforts to "protect Wikipedia from vandal acts", trying to be a "top vandal fighter". Among other things, I read all the BLP material and realized that there is much more than common sense regarding this matter, there are countries laws, specially US laws (I´m Brazilian). After all, I'd like to thank you for give me the opportunity to discover a little more about how to use my capacity to improve Wikipedia (as I'm relatively new here, the magical "number of edits" was very strong in my mind, compromising my behavior). I saw in your user page that you are in wikibrake, I'll take mine too, I really need it. I hope Monday you can answer me. Regards; Caiaffa (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 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) 03:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Meetup

Wikipedia:Meetup/Gainesville, Florida - in the planning stages, if you're interested. Yeah, I know, but it wouldn't be during a home-game weekend, if that'll help. :) --Ebyabe (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sonja de Lennart article completion

I have completed the Sonja de Lennart article page updating the bio text, adding text citations, references, and publication references. The tags have been removed as each situation was addressed. However, if anything more needs to be addressed to improve this article, your help is appreciated. At this point, can the negativity on the discussion page (i.e. Hoax and responses) be removed? Thank you for all your help and support. Pchip (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but unlike the article pages themselves, or a user page, we don't remove content from the discussion pages. Over time, it will be archived, but it serves as a useful tool for other editors to see how that page has evolved over time. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

I just wanted to say a few things and I hope I am not a trouble: recently I advised User:Agne27 here to possibly move the issue to Village Pump to discuss the generalities and work out a stronger community rule on how we see such descriptives in regards to BLP. I know you work with such matters and have a strong understanding. There appears to be some confusion about where the boundary would be here, and it would be best if it is discussed in a forum based on opinions instead of AN/I, which always seems to heighten tensions.

I agree with you and your view. I would ask you to recognize that User:Gatoclass puts a lot of effort into the DYK and tends to care a lot about the individual DYK. I don't mean to have you change any of your comments or what you are stating. Instead, I just want to point out that there is a lot of emotion behind this, especially with recent events that keep coming up with DYK over the past month (claims of plagarism, topic bannings, desysoping, etc). I've been trying to talk to everyone to make sure that we all have the perspective in mind (the individual who submitted the DYK still received credit, and the page was still listed on the main page for the full time).

Anyway, I am sorry if I am rambling at this point. There are probably some items that I forgot to mention, or others that I focused on too much. If you have any questions or comments, I will quickly respond. I hope this makes sense. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and that emotion is helpful sometimes, but sometimes we need to learn to take that emotion out of our editing. For Gatoclass, I believe this is one of those times. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to talk to him and offer myself up to discuss the situation and hopefully allow him to vent so we can all get onto business without tensions flaring. As per this, it seems that most of the parties are willing to let it drop for now and table it until a better time (i.e. discuss the issue along with other DYK issues if it comes up in the future). I believe that will be best for all, as time will allow perspective to sink in. Thank you for your response. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, since it's long off the main page, the issue will probably not blow up the way some other issues do. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I created this as a possible beginning of a proposal to put together at Village Pump. However, I do not have experience with proposals in this manner, and it would deal with admin issues that I, from my lack of being an admin, would not be a part of. Could you sound off, or possibly help me move the proposal forward if you think it could help deal with the issue? I think that having an extended 6 hour period (giving a 12 hour buffer before an article reaches main page, instead of the current 6) along with a section devoted to building consensus and carefully checking the nominees, would help reduce the problems that could arise later. Perhaps it would also give admin who specialize in BLP issues or have other concerns a chance to be more involved in the process. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, timing sucks for me this week. I doubt I can be a help. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic

Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come!
You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Love to go, but I have classes starting that week. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 01:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians

Hi Swatjester,

Impressive User page! Welcome to Wikipedians on LinkedIn

Patio (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You're invited...

...to the 5th Washington DC Meetup! Please visit the linked page to RSVP or for more information. All are welcome!
This has been an automated delivery, you can opt-out of future notices by removing your name from the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - great to finally meet you. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Blanking

I've blanked a couple of posts for discretion, one of them my own, Swat. I hope you don't mind. I figured at first I might as well be open about the matter, since Barnham made things pretty clear anyway. But I guess it's better still to remove both posts. Bishonen | talk 06:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC).

No worries. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnham is now on a 6 month "vacation" for socking. Perhaps you folks want to choose your friends more carefully.  ;-) Thank you Bishonen for blanking that post. Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My friends? I don't even know who he is. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That was sarcasm. I don't know who he is either, but I keep getting the feeling that I've seen him before. :D Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha, I just got off a plane and have the enviable combination of 24+ hours lack of sleep, a mild cold, which has contributed to my ears not de-compressing after the flight so I'm temporarily deaf, and somewhere in the midst I lost my sarcasm meter. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh good grief! Get some rest and fluids. Jehochman ^Talk 16:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about deleted entry: List of television stations in North America by media market

I see that you deleted the entry "List of television stations in North America by media market" today and that it was deleted per an ORTS legal ticket. What I would like to know is if Nielsen Media Research made you delete the entry. I ask because I maintain the DirecTV Local-inti-Local (LiL) and HD LiL lists, which use Nielsen Media Research DMA rankings. Was the use of the rankings what was objected to by Nielsen? Thanks for the info.

OKNewshawk (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the substance of tickets. Sorry. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 10:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the reasoning behind deleting the entry "List of television stations in North America by media market?" Even if it had to do with Nielson, you should be able to show all recognized markets and their television stations. The only thing that would be witheld would be the numbers... I use this page a lot so I'm quite confused and disappointed. 76.180.88.79 (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, see my comment above. With regard to the article, after the amount of content that was needed to be removed was finally excised, it could no longer support the pages existence, so it was deleted. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

WHy on earth was this deleted? it had NO copyright infringement, and it could clearly stand on its own. I see no reason why you need to hide information after deleting a well-known and well-visited page... I'm requesting undeletion. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 19:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that decision is not for you to make. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Was citing WP:OFFICE in your deletion message an error? Avruch ^T 19:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The deletion was at Mike's request, but yes citing WP:OFFICE was in error, I meant to cite as coming from the office staff's instruction, rather than per the policy. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Cary has reinstated the page with the removed content excised. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

New Question

Is there a way, to make WP:TVS members happy and Nielsen happy, where we can remake (without violation) the "market" templates (for lack of a better term at the moment) without the Nielsen owned information and still have a list of TV stations in a certain "Metropolitan Area", with the same general setup (general look) as before? - NeutralHomer • Talk 04:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can remake the content without a copyright violation, there's no problem as far as anyone is concerned (assuming you can do so without violating no original research.) I don't know enough about the subject to speculate on how that'd be done, but I'm sure there's a way.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is teh current idea that we are kicking around on WP:TVS.

{{User:Neutralhomer/Sandbox2}}

I didn't make it, I am just putting it on my sandbox so you don't get the entire code on your talk page. Personally, I think it works. Maybe it needs more work, but Mike isn't answering any emails, so I guess we are on our own on this one. What do you think? Would this make Nielsen, Godwin, and TVS happy? - NeutralHomer • Talk 18:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume so. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I made of my own on the WP:WPRS layout:

{{User:Neutralhomer/Sandbox3}}

Right now, it's split on who likes it and who doesn't, but it is completely different....which is even better. - NeutralHomer • Talk 22:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

One more Nielsen OTRS question

Who *can* tell us what was asked to be taken down, so no one accidentally triggers a new takedown notice? :) rootology (C)(T) 16:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would assume it would need to be someone from the office, as privacy considerations prevent volunteers from disclosing the contents of a ticket. On the other hand, I'm personally of the opinion that we shouldn't be editing with the worry of triggering a new takedown notice; we should just be editing as normal and if we get a takedown, we deal with it. If we never get one, there's nothing to worry about. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan Next: Saturday September 27

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
• Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

• Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project

349 W. 12th St. #3

Between Greenwich & Washington Streets

By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:

• Wikis Take Manhattan main website

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Logo request

Swatjester, I'm not sure what to do about requests to use the WP logo. I figured someone on ComCom and the legal side would know. [1]. Cheers.--chaser - t 03:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Goes to the press or legal queues, depending on reason for the request. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

the living word fellowship afd

hi. could you clarify why you blanked the living word fellowship afd? i don't really understand this otrs thing. thanks :) xxx Jessi1989 (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, OTRS is the system that answers complaints to the foundation. I courtesy blanked the afd, because there is currently an OTRS ticket on the topic, and out of courtesy to the person who wrote the ticket, the AFD was blanked. The history can still be viewed in the history tab, should anyone need it, but this way the current text, including the discussion (some of which was very harsh and negative opinion) is not out there for anyone to read as fact. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

hi again. i wasn't aware of any harsh or nagative opinions in the afd. what happens if you recieve two conflicting complaints, for example if someone else complains about it being deleted and wants it back? Jessi1989 (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OTRS question

Hey, I was wondering if it would be appropriate for the protection to be reduced on this article. Tiptoety ^talk 05:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Normally I'd suggest OK, but since this article is a perennial complaint at OTRS, I think retaining the semi-protection is warranted. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. Thank you! Tiptoety ^talk 14:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Was this what you were looking for me on IRC for? Cause I leave IRC on my desktop, and spend most of my day on my laptop at school. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Grandsecretary

I would assume the deletion of the userpage was a user request? If so, said user is simply using dynamic IPs, clearly identifying himself as Clatworthy, and is generally causing issues at various Masonic articles (see Talk:Grande Loge de France). MSJapan (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the deletion was per user request. For various reasons, it's not a good idea that I get involved with investigating the user based on an on-wiki complaint at the moment. WP:AN/I, someone can help you there. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Custodian class and deleted edits

I'm a bit curious as to how this would interfere with OTRS in some massive fashion. I understand that making it like rollback or (worse) making deleted difs available for autoconfirmed users would be bad. But under a proposal like the Custodian idea we would likely have elections for the ability to view deleted difs. There are probably many people who could be trusted with that ability but not trusted with say the delete tool or the block button. User:Ed Poor comes to mind and there are doubtless many others. 15:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's my position that a) the concept of granting a new userlevel is beyond the scope of the original debate, and the vagaries of that have not been fully explored (i.e. by what method do we grant access to this user level?) and b) because such a position would be easier to gain access to than adminship, it would therefore hinder our ability to say to complainants that only trusted administrators can see the deleted versions. c) If we can't trust someone with the delete tool or block button, what makes you think that they should be given access to something that can potentially harm people off-wiki? IMHO we should give them the block button before we give them access to deleted revisions, as that kind of damage is much more easily repaired. And d) frankly, I don't see the difference between a "custodian" level and a "rollbacker" level. It's just a matter of semantics, especially since the so-called "custodian" level isn't even in existence yet and has undefined requirements and methods of being granted. Not to mention, it brings up confusion with Wikiversity. And e) I still don't see any good argument for WHY people need access to deleted revisions. The harm just outweighs the good by a long shot. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. In regards to a) if I made a detailed proposal in userspace would you consider taking a look at it? b) I think that the idea here is we would give this to trusted individuals, but the level of trust would be not as high as that for adminship. In particular, we have people who are clearly trusted but have in the past misused the block button or such (take for example, both Ed Poor and Felonious Monk) but I don't think anyone would realistically be worried about either of those individuals misusing the ability to look at deleted edits. c) the issue here is I think distinct since there are different types of trust. Someone might not be trusted to not block people when they get angry but we would trust them with other things. I agree that giving the block button might make sense before giving deletion access, and I'd likely support a move to give the block tool out separately, but the lack of such an option at this point doesn't mean we shouldn't in the meantime engage in a separate level beyond that one, if that makes any sense. I'm a bit confused with d since that seems to be a restatement of (a) and I have no idea what the issue with Wikiversity is (could you explain that in more detail). (No response to e because it seems to be a judgment call about how useful this would be). So I guess the real question is if you would be willing to look at a more detailed proposal about what this level would actually entail and how it would be granted. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WereSpielChequers

I've asked you to redact or at least reconsider you poorly worded support. Your support !vote is not in question but please avoid describing other editors views and comments as "jokes". That is poor form. Pedro :  Chat  17:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the point: it's highlighting the absurdity of the oppose votes. So, no. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the irony of you admonishing me to avoid describing other editors views as a joke, when I'm referring specifically to opposes claiming the RFA candidate's nomination is being treated like a joke. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this came over very well on my part so apologies. I'm simply asking you not to make gross generalisations. I made the effort to substantiate my oppose by asking questions and taking from that evidence. You supported purely on the opposers being a joke. Up to you if you think your rationale is more valid than mine. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm supporting solely to counteract the people opposing based on a joke. That's a perfectly valid reasoning. It's also a moral support to the candidate to say "You know what, some people on Wikipedia do have a sense of humor." ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've no issue (obviously) with your support. I have an issue with your gross generalisation that the opposers are jokes. As I noted at the RFA I've opposed based on solid reasoning and evidence. You've supported because you don't like the opposers. Whose rationale do you honestly think is a joke if you look at it from my point of view? Pedro :  Chat  20:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

On review I think I've come to your talk page rather agressively and I apologise for that - I certainly could have been mor epositive and collegial. Previous negative interaction has clouded my judgement here. I understand your frustration with opposes that seem to be without value - I often feel the same! I think my point stands that it is better to offer a support on solid reasoning rather than to "counteract" opposition (and vice versa) but I do feel I have not met my own standards in debate here and have unfairly singled you out. Again, my apologies. Pedro :  Chat  22:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

That is one amazing userpage. Shame Facebook changed its design :-) -- how do you turn this on 15:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't take any credit, I got it from Gurch, and adapted it. I couldn't program my way out of a box. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 16:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, still maybe you could ask him to update it? Or do you hate the new design? Personally, I preferred it the old way. -- how do you turn this on 16:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the new design, but I don't really intend to update my userpage much. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN discussion

As a user who contributed to the discussion concerning Koavf (talk · contribs), you're invited to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Specific_Sanctions_-_proposals also. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Allianz

I know you have knowledge and interest in these type of companies. What do you think of the Nazi section? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done, it covers everything I researched. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 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) 23:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your help in reverting vandalism on this article. --George Thompson (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Temperance Fountain

Hey, I hear you are in DC, so I wanted to ask a favor. When you have some time, would you mind validating some coordinates for DC landmark for me? According to sources Temperance Fountain is at the corner of 7th & Penn. NW, across from the Hancock statue, so I kind of guessed at coordinates based on Google Earth -- unfortunately the satellite imagery for that intersection isn't very clear (I put it at the southwestern corner). Would you happen to know if this is right? Thanks... howcheng {chat} 23:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it this week. Please send me an email via the "email user" function, so I can have a reminder. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Living Word Fellowship

Okay, I wasn't aware of the OTRS. But seriously, isn't it a little frivolous to have three afds in a month, especially given that the second and third were by an SPA? It feels like process for process' sake. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

SwatJester -- I reverted the AFD , first, as this is a WP:POINT nom, the nom's entire history shown here is almost entirely about removing this article and nothing else. Now, I have no stake in this article, and , if nom gets reverted I certainly won't revert back. If you absolutely feel that the AFD needs to stand, despite it's appearing POINT, you can revert me as well and I won't revert again. However, please give the number of OTRS ticket your'e talking about should you revert me. I mean, I can't seem any of them, but having a number looks better than none at all. Thanks KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 17:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• The nominator may be an SPA, but I think if we look at her points, there's some validity to them. I've been seeing something in my time as a Wikipedia editor that concerns me, and it's coming up specifically with the article on The Living Word Fellowship. It seems to me that the reliability of the sources being used is not being adequately sussed out, not only for this particular article, but for many articles throughout Wikipedia. I think it is our duty as Wikipedia editors to make sure that whatever sources we use are truly reliable. A common misconception (not shared by every editor, but present in many) is that any information in a book or an article should automatically be considered true and usable. While I absolutely agree there should be no original research, I think we must do our own original research behind the scenes to make sure that we are having integrity in presenting information as fact in a Wikipedia article. I've even seen editors "source" an article with material that they obviously did not read themselves just so they can Wikify. Anyway, I don't really know what to do about this, but thought I should share. Jeremiah (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Campus Radio.

Hi, I've noted your contributions to IRC disscussions, and was wondering if you knew of anyone that may be able to assist in the production of some programming for the Wiki Campus Radio project in respect to Armistice Day.

As your comments, in IRC suggested you were recently on active duty, I felt you might be an ideal person to provide a modern perspective, compared to the already planned use of War Poets whose work is in the Public Domain.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Recently" is 2005. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK . Apologies. As it happens , because of issues in finding the (C) status of works being considered, the planned playlits has been postponed ( also sensitivity concerns had been raised in the relevant disscussions) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

de:Vorlage:Phononet

Hi, by emptying this template you triggered a discussion whether it should be deleted. What is the problem stated in OTRS #2008102310040737? --MBq (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I responded in the link above (in english), but the essence is the deletion was at the recommendation of a WMF employee based on copyright concerns. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --MBq (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday November 16th, Columbia University area Last: 6/01/2008

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

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.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Rollback feature

Hey there, i am on wikipedia since 2006. Now a days i find many times vandalism across it so can you please grant me the ability of rollback feature so that i can fight the vandalism here, i would be very thankful for your any other advice. BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 10:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please take care in evaluating this request for rollback rights. The editor has not exhibited good judgement as can be seen from his history of bad speedy deletion tagging [2]. Also, the claim for being an editor since 2006 is completely at odds with his actual edit history showing an earliest edit of May 30, 2008. Note that lying is something this editor has done in the past with him claiming to have taken pictures with his own camera when they were taken frome the web. [3]. -- Whpq (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This editor has also requested rollback from 6 admins and been denied 3 times already by myself, Friday and Yannismarou. Shell ^babelfish 22:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)

The October 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) 01:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been a year...

... since I became an admin, thanks to your kind nom. I hope I've lived up to your expectations. If you have hints for my improvement, please let me know! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 12:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow! I can't believe it's been so long. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice Question

lol your question here is one I really wanted to ask but didn't dare to ask due to past conflicts. Nice job. Dengero (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

List of television stations in North America by media market

Hi Swat! In September you listed an OTRS ticket on the above article [4]. The OTRS ticket number you gave was #2008091610055854. I have searched the system at OTRS and cannot find the ticket. It has become somewhat of an issue at the article and is verging on an edit war. Some are using that ticket to argue that an OFFICE action is preventing the addition of FCC information. Your help would be very useful. I'm trying to kep things on an even keel but some folks are pretty adamant. Thanks! JodyB _talk 14:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a legal queue ticket, and has been long since resolved. Could you summarize for me? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 14:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

On NWA.Rep

On what grounds do you keep removing user page content? It is a user page, not main space so normally in no way you'd be looking at it. It seems NWA.Rep is right after all, some admins do have issues with their powers.

In the past there was a whole discussion about his practical joke, with the outcome that in fact he was right, it is (or, was) his user page and no-one elses. I suppose you must be content, NWA.Rep apparently took his leave – why can't you let him be? --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 19:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I could care less about his practical joke, though it's borderline disruptive, an opinion shared by many. However the other material on his page is being removed under WP:NOT#Myspace. If you came here to characterize me as having "issues with my powers" and other such ridiculous conclusions, you're welcome to take your opinions elsewhere. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Visiting your part of the world

I just went to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. I cannot even describe how I feel now, especially walking through the rail car. And the IG Farben canisters were enough to remind me about those companies' successors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to visit the National Museum of American Jewish Military History in Dupont Circle [5], 1811 R St. NW. It's nowhere near as complete, but it's somewhat more accessible. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that they're open on Thanksgiving day, so I might miss it. I'll be back soon enough to see it. You know, all the years in the military, some of it in Washington, and I never knew of it or the Jewish veterans organization. I've got to pull my head out of my intestinal tract someday.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 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) 17:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I'd like to apply for the use of Rollback. What do I need to do? Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFRB ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

otrs afd blanking

hi there. sorry to bring this up after so long. i got distracted by something else on wiki and have been busy with it for quite some time. i was hoping you could respond to my question here. an additional point would be, what difference does thi sblanking make? you say that the discussion "is not out there for anyone to read as fact" but as you also say, it is out there, in the page history. all this does is make it take a couple more clicks to find. or maybe hide it from people who don't know about page histories... i really find this kind of thing rather confusing a un-wiki-like. thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As a courtesy, we often blank pages so they are not immediately visible (though remain in the history). By doing this, one of the benefits is that they are not indexed by google. Since anyone who really needs to know the history will be looking at it anyway, this saves the subject from having a visible discussion on things at AFD like their credibility or such, while preserving the discussion on Wikipedia for those who actually need it (we can just look into the history). It's quite wiki-like in that it relies on the history tab, and it's a quite commonly used action across Wikipedia in general, and AFDs in particular.16:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

ok, but the query that i linked you to was regarding this whole "courtesy" thing. what's to stop me emailing otrs to get this page unblanked as a "courtesy" for me? Jessi1989 (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

also could you point out the "very harsh and negative opinion" that you mention was the reason for this page being blanked? all that i can see in the discussion is lots of valid evidence as to why this subject fails wp:n and potentially wp:v. thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

OTRS doesn't handle courtesy unblankings. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)